IHC lifts bar on collection of gas levy
In its order, the court conditionally lifted its three weeks old stay granted against the recovery of Rs791 per mmBtu gas levy from owners of the factories using gas to produce in-house electricity.
The levy has been imposed on the instructions of the IMF to compel industries shift from gas to the national power grid.
The government wanted to use the money to reduce the electricity prices by about Rs1 unit in line with an understanding with the IMF.
The court released its reserved order after AGP Mansoor Usman Awan through an application sought vacation of the stay under.
"Upon consideration of the foregoing, the civil miscellaneous application is hereby allowed, and the interim order is recalled subject to the following express conditions," reads the judge order.
The court instructed that "all tax amounts collected from the petitioners under the impugned Ordinance shall be deposited and retained in the Federal Consolidated Fund for the duration of the Ordinance's validity, i.e., 120 days from its promulgation".
The court further ruled that the money shall not be appropriated, transferred, or expended for any purpose other than the one provided under the impugned ordinance.
The order stated that "in the event that the impugned Ordinance does not receive Parliamentary approval, all sums collected under its authority shall, upon the Ordinance's lapse, be forthwith refunded to the petitioners in full, without deduction or delay".
In February, the government had promulgated a Presidential Ordinance to impose off-grid gas levy on these in-house power plants but did not notify the rates. During the IMF talks, it became an issue and on March 7, the government notified a 23% increase in gas rates for industrial captive power plants (CPPs) by imposing a Rs791 per mmBtu grid levy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
21 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Dr Aafia case: IHC issues contempt notice to PM, cabinet
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the federal cabinet in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui, seeking the repatriation, health status, and release of her sister, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who is imprisoned in the United States of America. A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Monday, hearing Siddiqui's petition, issued the notices against the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet over the government's failure to submit a report in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case. Justice Ejaz expressed strong displeasure over the government for not submitting the required report about why the government was refusing to sign an amicus brief on Aafia case. He noted in his written order, 'The government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.' The IHC office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the federal government will be respondents. The replies of all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today (July 21). Justice Ejaz stated that ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this High Court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly, and bringing it almost to its last breaths. 'This is yet another instance. The heresy I speak of now is besieging the dispensation of Justice by a Judge of the High Court by the device of the 'weekly roster' controlled by the office of the Chief Justice. It is both heart-rending and amusing at the same time, a blend of paradox that this High Court has become,' said the judge. Justice Ejaz mentioned that he had passed the previous order giving the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the Additional Advocate General that inaction would leave him no choice but to proceed in contempt. The government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case. He stated that for whatever reason, the government's case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court. The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this Court through its roster. 'The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold Court by the High Court establishment when he is on leave,' added the judge. He pointed out that his leave was meant to start today and the roster of judges sitting for this week therefore did not include his name. 'The leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which I had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice in this and the other eases that ordered for listing today.' The judge also said that on Thursday or perhaps Friday, he was informed through his PS by the Office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the Chief Justice. That seemed to me a trivial matter and he asked his PS to move an application accordingly. He further said that he was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it. He maintained, 'Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the Motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former. The correct legal position is that the Office cannot use the shoulder of the Chief Justice in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a Judge in an ongoing case.' Justice Ejaz stated that the motivation of a Judge to hold Court on a day on which he is 'officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold Court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. 'I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold Court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. Gone are the days when a Judge could pass an order even while playing Golf or dining with his family if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a Courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case – were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business. He said this is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. 'To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses.' Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case until September 1. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
The balance of payments
The balance of payments figures of Pakistan for the full year, 2024-25, were released a few days ago by the SBP. There is an overall balance of payments surplus of USD 3.7 billion, in comparison to a surplus of USD 2.9 billion in 2023-24. However, a stark transformation is visible in the nature of the balance of payments in 2024-25 as compared to the magnitudes in 2023-24. The current account balance has been transformed from a deficit of USD 2.1 billion in 2023-24 to a surplus of USD 2.1 billion in 2024-25. This is due to the quantum jump in home remittances of over USD 8 billion, implying an extraordinarily high growth rate of 38.3 percent. Clearly, the overall level of remittances is unlikely to have increased by over USD 8 billion. This is due to the intervention by the SBP for the first time in the foreign exchange market and replacement thereby of hundi/havala transactions. In the absence of such a big intervention the likelihood is that the current account would have been in a deficit of USD 6 billion, unless strong physical controls were applied on imports. Given the enhanced reserves position of the SBP, the controls on imports of goods have visibly been relaxed. The growth in the value of imports of goods has been unusually high at over 11 percent. The real source of worry is the disappointing performance of exports. They have shown a very modest growth rate of only 4 percent. If Pakistan is to reach a position of sustainable external balance of payments, exports in coming years will have to approach a double-digit growth rate; otherwise, exiting from IMF support will be infeasible. Perhaps, another surprising outcome is the virtually unchanged level of primary income in the current account. Clearly, profit repatriation by multinational companies in Pakistan has not increased because of stagnant profitability in the domestic market. Interest payments ought to have been somewhat higher in the face of the rising stock of external debt of Pakistan. The good news is the over 9 percent increase in exports of services. This is probably due at least partially to the fast increase in IT exports. Hopefully, this growth rate will be sustained and perhaps enhanced in coming years. Overall, the over 25 percent growth in secondary income and over USD 38 billion in workers' remittances have led to the surplus in the current account of USD 2 billion. Turning the financial account, the outcome is a big decline in the surplus. It was USD 5.4 billion in 2023-24 and has declined by over USD 3.9 billion to only USD 1.5 billion in 2024-25. The level of foreign investment has remained unchanged at USD 1.8 billion. There has been a net outflow of portfolio funds. This has happened despite the strong boom in the stock market in Pakistan. This highlights the continuing lack of confidence of the international private sector in the Pakistan economy. The net inflow into the Government account has been only marginally higher. It was USD 1.6 billion in 2023-24 which has increased to USD 2.3 billion in 2024-25. Both disbursement and amortization have shown increases. The other inflows into the financial account, especially to the private sector, have turned negative. They were USD 2 billion in 2023-24 but have turned negative by USD 2.6 billion in 2024-25. This is another worrying development. The foreign exchange reserves have been bolstered significantly by USD 5.1 billion. This is due to the extent of USD 3.7 billion to the overall surplus in the balance of payments and USD 1.4 billion of net inflow from the IMF in the first year of the IMF extended facility. The level of foreign exchange reserves of the SBP at the end of 2024-25 stands at USD 14.1 billion. This provides import cover of almost 2.5 months' of imports. However, unusual short-term fluctuations have been observed in foreign exchange reserves. They fell temporarily to only USD 9.1 billion on the 20th of June 2025. This magnitude of fluctuation in foreign exchange reserves does not auger well for stability in the value of the rupee. There is need to develop an outlook for the balance of payments in 2025-26. The first indicator is the estimated net inflow of external resources into the federal government account. According to the Budget in Brief publication of the federal ministry of finance, the net inflow of external resources in 2025-26 is projected to decline massively from Rs 2,583 billion in 2024-25 to only Rs 105 billion in 2025-26, due to a quantum jump of 70 percent in external debt repayment. The IMF has also made projections of the balance of payments in the Staff Report after the successful completion of the first review. The outlook for 2025-26 is for a current account deficit of USD 1.5 billion. Further, the financial account is also anticipated to be lower than the level in 2024-25 by USD 1 billion. The pre-condition for continuation of some buildup of foreign exchange reserves in 2025-26 is for Pakistan to continue operating within the External Fund Facility of the IMF. This will lead to a net inflow of USD 1.9 billion as compared to only USD 0.5 billion in 2024-25. Overall, the balance of payments position in 2025-26 may become more fragile without a big increase in home remittances as in 2024-25. Already, after a year of demonstrated strength of the rupee, there are now indications of faster decline in the value of the rupee. The SBP and the Ministry of Finance will need to maintain vigilance and take action whenever necessary. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
IHC startscontempt case against PM, cabinet
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has initiated contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his entire cabinet for disregarding its order to provide reasons for not assisting a US court hearing the case of incarcerated neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui. "As the government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government. "Office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the Federal Government will be respondents. The replies of all the ministers, including the prime minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today," said a three-page order authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan. The judge noted that in his last order he had given the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the state law officer that inaction would result in contempt proceedings. The federal government on July 15 approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the May 16, 2025, order of the IHC that allowed amendments to a previously settled petition concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui - nearly a decade after its filing. The SC, however, has not yet listed the petition for hearing. Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan was to go on summer vacation from Monday (July 21). However, he had announced at the last hearing that he would hear the case on July 21. Interestingly, the IHC did not list the case for hearing before his bench. The judge, nevertheless, heard the case on Monday and later issued a blistering order, criticizing IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the entire "demolition squad catapulted into" the IHC after the 26th amendment. Justice Khan noted that the leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which he had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice "On Thursday or perhaps Friday, I was informed through my PS [personal secretary] by the office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the chief justice. "That seemed to me a trivial matter and I asked my PS to move an application accordingly. I was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it. "Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former." He said the government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case but the SC did not take up the case. "[So] the machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this court through its roster. "The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold court by the high court establishment when he is on leave." He stated that the correct legal position is that the office cannot use the shoulder of the CJ in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a judge. He said the motivation of a judge to hold court on a day on which he is officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. "I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. He said gone were the days when a judge could pass an order even while playing golf or dining with his family, if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business. "This is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. "However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses," he added. The bench will resume hearing the case on September 1.
