Super tax case hearing put off till April 7
During the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for various companies, argued that this was not a tax but a fee, adding that imposition of social welfare taxes was a provincial matter.
At the outset of the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan expressed condolences on the death of former law minister Khalid Anwar. Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned until April 7.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Brazil's Bolsonaro arrested, adding to tensions with Trump
BRASILIA: Brazil's Supreme Court put former President Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest on Monday ahead of his trial for an alleged coup plot, underscoring the court's resolve despite escalating tariffs and sanctions from U.S. President Donald Trump. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the target of U.S. Treasury sanctions last week, issued the arrest order against Bolsonaro. His decision cited a failure to comply with restraining orders he had imposed on Bolsonaro for allegedly courting Trump's interference in the case. Bolsonaro is on trial before the Supreme Court on charges he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 electoral loss to leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a 'witch hunt' and called it grounds for a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods taking effect on Wednesday. The U.S. State Department condemned the house arrest order, saying Moraes was using Brazilian institutions to silence opposition and threaten democracy, adding the U.S. would 'hold accountable all those aiding and abetting sanctioned conduct.' It did not provide details, though Trump has said the U.S. could still impose even higher tariffs on Brazilian imports. The Monday order from Moraes also banned Bolsonaro from using a cell phone or receiving visits, except for his lawyers and people authorized by the court. A press representative for Bolsonaro confirmed he was placed under house arrest on Monday evening at his Brasilia residence by police who seized his cell phone. Bolsonaro's lawyers said in a statement they would appeal the decision, arguing the former president had not violated any court order. In an interview with Reuters last month, Bolsonaro called Moraes a 'dictator' and said the restraining orders against him were acts of 'cowardice.' Some Bolsonaro allies have worried that Trump's tactics may be backfiring in Brazil, compounding trouble for Bolsonaro and rallying public support behind Lula's leftist government. However, Sunday demonstrations by Bolsonaro supporters — the largest in months — show that Trump's tirades and sanctions against Moraes have also fired up the far-right former army captain's political base. Bolsonaro appeared virtually at a protest in Rio de Janeiro via phone call to his son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, in what some saw as the latest test of his restraining orders. Moraes said that the former president had repeatedly made attempts to bypass the court's orders. 'Justice is blind, but not foolish,' the justice wrote in his decision. On Monday, Senator Bolsonaro told CNN Brasil that Monday's order from Moraes was 'a clear display of vengeance' for the U.S. sanctions against the judge, adding: 'I hope the Supreme Court can put the brakes on this person (Moraes) causing so much upheaval.' The judge's orders, including the restraining orders under penalty of arrest, have been upheld by the wider court. Those orders and the larger case before the Supreme Court came after two years of investigations into Bolsonaro's role in an election-denying movement that culminated in riots by his supporters that rocked Brasilia in January 2023. That unrest drew comparisons to the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol after Trump's 2020 electoral defeat. In contrast with the tangle of criminal cases which mostly stalled against Trump, Brazilian courts moved swiftly against Bolsonaro, threatening to end his political career and fracture his right-wing movement. An electoral court has already banned Bolsonaro from running for public office until 2030. Another of Bolsonaro's sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a Brazilian congressman, moved to the U.S. around the same time the former president's criminal trial kicked off to drum up support for his father in Washington. The younger Bolsonaro said the move had influenced Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on Brazil. In a statement after the arrest on Monday, Congressman Bolsonaro called Moraes 'an out-of-control psychopath who never hesitates to double down.' Trump last month shared a letter he had sent to Bolsonaro. 'I have seen the terrible treatment you are receiving at the hands of an unjust system turned against you,' he wrote. 'This trial should end immediately!' Washington based its sanctions against Moraes last week on accusations that the judge had authorized arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressed freedom of expression. The arrest could give Trump a pretext to pile on additional measures against Brazil, said Graziella Testa, a political science professor at the Federal University of Parana, adding that Bolsonaro seemed to be consciously provoking escalation. 'I think things could escalate because this will be seen as a reaction to the Magnitsky sanction' against Moraes, said Leonardo Barreto, a partner at the Think Policy political risk consultancy in Brasilia, referring to the asset freeze imposed on Moraes last week.
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
TTAP urges top judge to probe sugar scam
Opposition leaders attend the first day of the two-day All Parties Conference in Islamabad on July 31, 2025. Photo: X An opposition parties' alliance has urged the country's top judge to take suo motu notice of "a systemic policy manipulation" in the sugar industry that has allowed "a select group of sugar barons" to reap immense profits "at the direct expense of common citizens". The "urgent appeal" sent to Chief Justice of Yahya Afridi by Tehreek Tahaffuz Aine-e-Pakistan (TTAP) Vice Chairman Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar stated that the recent sugar crisis is a stark testament to how entrenched interests exploit national policy for personal gain. It claimed that an alarming increase in sugar pricesto an unprecedented Rs200 per kg since Januaryis not a mere market fluctuation but a direct consequence of deliberate policy choices and demands an immediate and decisive intervention of the Supreme Court. It said Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government, in a move that defies logic and public interest, first approved the export of 765,000 metric tonnes of sugar between July 2024 and May 2025, despite clear warnings of impending supply shortages. "This decision allowed a select group of sugar barons to reap immense profits. Subsequently, when local prices skyrocketed, the government paradoxically approved the import of 500,000 metric tons of sugar, further facilitating the same beneficiaries through preferential tax treatment." "The cabinet waived all duties and taxes on these imports. This tax exemption has rightly drawn the ire of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), clashing with loan conditions and exacerbating Pakistan's fiscal strain." According to the appeal, this export-import cycle, repeated over the past 24 months, unequivocally exposes the profound influence of the sugar industry over national policy. It raises serious questions about economic stewardship and, more critically, about who really benefits from these decisions. Citing "credible reports", it said a staggering 50% of sugar mills are owned by politicians, including prominent affiliates of the ruling PML-N coalition. This direct involvement of the political class, holding parliamentary seats, represents a profound conflict of interest and cements their "entrenched political clout". The appeal stated that this blending of political muscle and commercial interest has effectively entrenched a near-monopoly, enabling a calculated strategy to maximize gains for a privileged few. It said the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) previously imposed penalties totaling Rs44 billion on 81 sugar mills in August 2021, underscoring a history of cartelization and exploitative practices. "This situation is a textbook example of "extractive institutions" as described by Acemoglu and Robinson in 'Why Nations Fail', designed to 'steer the economic rewards toward a relatively small elite'. "The crisis mirrors how concentrated political power is used to create immense wealth for those who wield it, while the vast majority of Pakistanis suffer from inflation and a strained economy." It claimed that the policy shifts in the sugar sector are not accidental but are deliberate mechanisms, crafted by a politically connected elite, to extract wealth from the masses.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Revisiting August 5, 2019
Six years after the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution on August 5, 2019 which had given special status to Jammu & Kashmir, it is time to analyse to what extent New Delhi managed to get support of local Kashmiris, and how after the Pahalgam terrorist attack and Operation Sindoor, the Modi regime failed to seek international backing on its flawed narrative about Pakistan's involvement in acts of terror in the occupied territory. The recently concluded debate in the Indian parliament on Operation Sindoor featured opposition leader Rahul Gandhi lambasting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for lying over President Donald Trump's claim of brokering a ceasefire in the May 7-10 Indo-Pak war and India losing five war planes in the armed conflict. The Kashmir conflict which, according to the Modi regime, had lost its momentum and New Delhi had fully absorbed it in Indian union after August 5 is again a high-profile international issue. How did India lose its perceived edge over its absorption of J&K on August 5, 2019? Why did the Modi regime fail to provide evidence of Pakistan's alleged involvement in the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025 in which 26 civilians were killed? How did the failure of Operation Sindoor reverse Modi's Kashmir policy, providing Pakistan a unique opportunity to forcefully raise the Kashmir issue at the international level? Certainly, frustration and anger within the Modi regime over failing to take Operation Sindoor to its desired conclusion means that for the first time since August 5, 2019, New Delhi's confidence to firmly establish its control over occupied Kashmir has been dented. A major setback after the August 5, 2019 actions was caused when following the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, President Trump stated that he was ready to help resolve the Kashmir conflict in order to establish peace in South Asia. Since signing the Shimla Pact with Pakistan in July 1972, India has maintained a consistent position that the Kashmir issue is a bilateral matter and can only be resolved through negotiations between Islamabad and Delhi. Trump's offer of mediation on Kashmir not only antagonised India but also challenged its position that Kashmir was no more an outstanding issue in the wake of its merger with India union. The Modi regime, however, miscalculated Operation Sindoor which proved counter-productive and brought the Kashmir dispute back in the limelight. The Indian Supreme Court had, in December 2023, dismissed petitions against the revocation of article 370 and legitimised the J&K merger with the Indian union, ordering that the statehood of the disputed territory be restored by September 24, 2024. Following the Supreme Court verdict, the election to the J&K Legislative Assembly, held in September-October 2024, saw the National Conference (NC) forming a coalition government along with Congress, and Omer Abdullah became the Chief Minister. Even after the election in the occupied region, the real power rested with the Governor and New Delhi continued to undermine the authority of Chief Minister. In order to further legitimise its position on J&K after August 5, the Modi regime publicised the holding of tourism conference under G-20 in Srinagar in May 2023 and launched infrastructure road, dam and power projects. But all its efforts to strengthen its hold over J&K after August 5, 2019 suffered a setback when Operation Sindoor failed and Kashmir regained its status as a dispute between Pakistan and India. Revisiting the August 5, 2019 actions, particularly the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act passed by the Indian parliament and later upheld by the Supreme Court, needs to be analysed from three angles. First is the debacle of Operation Sindoor which led to the questioning of the Indian position whereby after August 5, 2019, the target was to wrest Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from Pakistan. Indian Defense Minister Raj Nath Singh had been threatening Pakistan that after absorbing J&K, India's next target would be Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. However, after the May 7-10 Indo-Pak war, the Modi regime is pursuing a defensive position. The recent furor in the Indian parliament in which the Modi regime was blamed by Congress and other opposition parties for mismanaging the Pahalgam episode as well as Operation Sindoor means the very stance of New Delhi after August 5 is losing credibility. On July 30, Indian opposition parties in the parliament had to stage a walkout when Prime Minister Narendra Modi avoided speaking on the floor of the assembly to respond to the allegations about the shooting down of five Indian war planes by the Pakistan Air Force and failure to provide security to tourists who were killed by terrorists in Pahalgam. Second, Pakistan lost a valuable opportunity to counter New Delhi's August 5 actions. As a result, not only India strengthened its position, particularly in the Valley, but also augmented its programme for settlement of Indian nationals. Indian authorities, following the model of the Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank, launched the policy of grabbing Kashmiris' lands under the cover of security and development. By abrogating articles 370 and 35-A, India not only ended the so-called autonomous status of the occupied region, but also got a free hand to settle non-locals in the Muslim-majority state and allowing them to vote in elections. Even then, in the September-October 2024 elections in the disputed state, the BJP failed to get a majority. Pakistan should have exerted pressure on the Modi regime for merging J&K with India as union territories in sheer violation of UNSC resolutions. Finally, Pakistan can still compel India to amend its policy on occupied Kashmir and resolve the conflict through negotiations if it is able to put its own house in order. Simply to argue that President Trump has offered to mediate is not enough. What is required of Pakistan is to better its economy, seek political stability, ensure good governance, guarantee rule of law, and eradicate extremism, corruption and nepotism. Despite revoking article 370 and absorbing J&K, India lacks legitimacy to justify its hold over the occupied Muslim-majority state. A strong Pakistan can certainly gain support of international community for Kashmiris.
