‘Nepra is delaying MLR on cold storage tariff decision'
Arif Bilwani had filed his MLR on December 30, 2024 under Rule 3(2) of the Nepra (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009 against the decision in the matter of application of tariff category for Cold Storages.
In a recent letter to Registrar Nepra, Bilwani referred to the issue wherein the Authority accepted his MLR after a lapse of eight weeks through a letter of February 13, 2025. However, since then, there has been no update or progress communicated by the Authority.
Classification of cold storage facilities: Nepra faces legal challenges following decision of appellate forum
'It is difficult to comprehend the continued delay in scheduling the hearing, despite more than four months having passed since the acceptance of the MLR. Subsequent to the said decision of the Authority, the Ministry of Industries & Production, the Federal Cabinet, and the ECC have all formally recognised Cold Storages as an industrial activity. The relevant approvals, meeting minutes, and official clarifications were duly submitted to Nepra on March 05, 2025,' said Bilwani in his letter.
He requested the Authority to conduct the hearing on the MLR without any further delay as Cold Storages are incurring significant financial losses due to the imposition of an incorrect Commercial Tariff—stemming from the flawed decision currently under review.
In MLR of December 30, 2024, he referred to the Authority's decision which was made through a casting vote by the Chair, despite dissenting notes from two learned members, including the Member Legal. He added that this approach raises significant concerns about the fairness and rationale of the decision.
In objections to the decision he referred to Section 5(3) of the Nepra's Act regarding compliance with Section 5(3) of the Act which states: 'The member shall have reasonable notice of the time and place of the meeting and the matters on which a decision by the Authority shall be taken in such meeting.'
Arif Bilwani argued that it is unclear whether reasonable notice was served to the Member Tariff, whose input was critical given the nature of this issue. The Member Tariff actively participated in all prior deliberations on this matter over the last two years. His absence from the final meeting raises questions about procedural compliance and the validity of the decision-making process.
He further stated that he had regularly attended Nepra's public hearings, including those held in 2023 for various Discos (PESCO, TESCO, GEPCO, and MEPCO). During these hearings, he had presented detailed arguments distinguishing modern cold storage facilities from traditional ones.
Bilwani argued that modern cold storages, which use controlled temperature and humidity systems, provide critical value-added services to industrial and commercial sectors. These services play a pivotal role in food security, health security, and export facilitation. His recorded views on this subject are available with the Authority in audio/video format.
Bilwani further maintained that the dissenting opinions of the Member Legal and Member Technical align with his arguments. These members articulated well-founded positions based on technical, legal, and global practices. Overruling such expert insights in favour of concerns about circular debt or subsidy implications undermines the integrity of the decision-making process.
He also challenged the understanding of the Authority about the modern Cold Storage industry and its operations, saying that the Authority's reasoning in paragraphs 10–12 of its decision reflects a narrow understanding of value addition. Categorising modern cold storages as merely providing a 'service to grocery chains, food distributors, restaurants, and other retail businesses' disregards their complex and highly technical operations, he said.
Modern cold storage facilities involve significant investments and employ advanced electromechanical processes to: (i) preserve the physical, chemical, and nutritional properties of products; (ii) extend the shelf life of perishable goods through precise temperature and humidity controls; and (iii) support critical industries like pharmaceuticals, where the controlled storage of active ingredients is essential for life-saving drug production.
He said that such facilities are distinctly industrial in nature and contribute significantly to the economy.
According to Bilwani, categorising modern cold storages as commercial consumers will increase electricity costs, disproportionately affecting industries relying on these services. Exporters, in particular, will face higher costs, reducing their competitiveness in both local and international markets. Another major sector which avails this facility is the Pharma sector which manufactures hordes of Pharma products including many life saving and other critical medicines whose active ingredients need specialized storage facilities which the controlled temperature Cold Storage facility provides. As the Pharma sector cannot take risk of any hurdle, shortage or scarcity of these critical active ingredients they always keep them readily available in bulk by availing the aforesaid facility.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
GENIUS Act, 2025 versus VAO, 2025
The global proliferation of crypto and virtual assets has triggered an urgent regulatory response across jurisdictions. The ability of digital assets to democratize finance and fuel innovation is matched only by the risks they pose in the hands of bad actors, including money launderers, terrorist financiers, and unregulated entities. Against this backdrop, legislative efforts in the United States and other regions have focused on a dual goal, fostering innovation while protecting consumer interests and financial stability. The United States' recently enacted Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, commonly referred to as the Genius Act, 2025 ['the Act'], is emblematic of this delicate balancing act. As Pakistan begins its regulatory path with the Virtual Assets Ordinance, 2025 [VAO, 2025], it is important to adopt a comparative perspective. The Act, signed into law in July, is a significant piece of legislation establishing a robust federal framework for issuance and oversight of payment stablecoins. At its core, the Act delineates a categorical distinction between 'permitted payment stablecoin issuers' and all other actors, mandating that only federally or state-qualified issuers are legally allowed to issue stablecoins in the United States. The Act explicitly prohibits issuance or sale of stablecoins by non-permitted entities after a three-year transition period, thereby closing the door on regulatory arbitrage and unlicensed operations. The legislative architecture of the Act places enormous emphasis on prudential regulation. The Act mandates a 1:1 reserve backing for all issued stablecoins, allowing only specific high-quality liquid assets such as treasury bills, insured deposits, and overnight repurchase agreements. Rehypothecation of reserves is strictly prohibited, and issuers must maintain monthly disclosures verified by registered public accounting firms. Moreover, stablecoin issuers are bound by strict anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions compliance, and customer due diligence obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. These standards position stablecoins more akin to bank-issued financial products than unregulated digital tokens. The Act further carves out the scope of permissible activities for issuers, limiting their operations to issuance, redemption, and reserve management, and explicitly prohibits offering interest or yield on stablecoins. This restriction is aimed at preventing the emergence of quasi-banking entities and ensuring that stablecoins are used solely for payments and settlements. Furthermore, the Act establishes a rigorous vetting process for public companies seeking to issue stablecoins, particularly those not primarily engaged in financial services, thereby safeguarding integrity of the financial system from commercial exploitation of user data and behavioral analytics. A unique feature of the Act is its embrace of federal-state dualism. State-qualified issuers are permitted, provided their regulatory frameworks are substantially like the federal regime. The Stablecoin Certification Review Committee, comprising top federal financial authorities, oversees certification and annual recertification of state regimes. This structure balances federal uniformity with state innovation, fostering a harmonized yet flexible regulatory environment. On the contrary, jurisdictions like the European Union (EU) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have taken parallel, yet distinct, regulatory approaches. EU's Market in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation is comprehensive, covering a broad spectrum of crypto assets including utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens, and e-money tokens. Unlike the Act's laser focus on stablecoins, MiCA provides a pan-European licensing regime and subjects issuers to capitalization, governance, and whitepaper disclosure requirements. Meanwhile, UAE's Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) in Dubai offers a layered licensing model, emphasizing operational segregation, cybersecurity, and real-time audit requirements. VARA's risk-based approach is technologically agile and emphasizes regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation. Additionally, MiCA and VARA address the same foundational concerns, consumer protection, market integrity, and financial stability, but they adopt divergent tactics. MiCA leans toward harmonization and centralized oversight via the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), whereas VARA champions bespoke compliance, dynamic risk scoring, and modular regulation. The Genius Act, on the contrary, injects a strong banking ethos into the crypto realm, creating a regulatory perimeter that closely mirrors traditional financial institutions. Turning to Pakistan's VAO, 2025, one finds a nascent but ambitious attempt at entering the regulated crypto economy. The Ordinance establishes a dedicated regulatory authority with powers to license, supervise, and sanction Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). It introduces registration requirements, capital adequacy norms, and fit-and-proper criteria for directors and senior management. Like the Act, the VAO, 2025 mandates AML compliance and allows for enforcement actions against non-compliant actors. However, its scope is broader in defining 'virtual assets', encompassing not just stablecoins but all forms of digital tokens. Despite its breadth, the VAO, 2025 suffers from operational and structural deficiencies. Unlike the Act, which delineates the exact composition of permissible reserves, redemption procedures, and auditing norms, Pakistan's framework remains vague on critical prudential aspects. There is no explicit requirement for 1:1 reserve backing or a monthly third-party audit. Moreover, the VAO, 2025 lacks a clearly defined licensing pipeline with timelines, appeal mechanisms, or transparency in decision-making. The Act, on the contrary, stipulates defined review periods, hearing rights, and judicial recourse, making it procedurally robust and constitutionally sound. Another fundamental shortfall in VAO, 2025 is the absence of tiered regulatory pathways for different scales or types of VASPs. The Act allows for a threshold-based transition to federal oversight when stablecoin issuance surpasses US$10 billion, preserving scalability and regulatory proportionality. In Pakistan's case, theVAO, 2025 does not differentiate between fintech startups and large-scale platforms, thereby imposing a one-size-fits-all compliance burden that could stifle innovation. From a critical standpoint, while the Act advances the regulatory frontier by establishing clear lines of authority, prudential discipline, and enforcement tools, it also leans heavily toward centralization. The exclusion of non-permitted entities, prohibition of interest-bearing features, and constraints on product design might overturn the growth of DeFi applications and algorithmic stablecoins. The Act, in essence, privileges safety over innovation, a trade-off that may not sit well with proponents of crypto-native decentralization. However, the VAO, 2025 reflects an intent to integrate into the global regulatory fabric, but lacks the depth and precision necessary for effective enforcement and industry confidence. Absence of granular compliance obligations, definitional clarity, and regulatory sandboxes indicates a policy framework still in its formative stage. Without substantive revisions, the Ordinance risks being perceived as an aspirational document rather than an enforceable regulatory instrument. To enhance its standing as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, Pakistan must pivot toward a more standardized and dynamic regulatory architecture. This includes codifying explicit reserve management protocols, enabling tiered licensing models, establishing sandbox environments for innovation testing, and ensuring alignment with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards on virtual assets. Pakistan should also consider bilateral cooperation with regulatory authorities in advanced jurisdictions to foster knowledge sharing and cross-border compliance harmonization. Only through such comprehensive reforms can Pakistan transform its VAO, 2025 into a credible, innovation-friendly, and enforcement-ready framework that attracts investment, safeguards consumers, and fortifies financial integrity in the digital asset space. (Huzaima Bukhari & Dr Ikramul Haq, lawyers and partners of Huzaima & Ikram, are Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), members Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellows of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) and Abdul Rauf Shakoori is a corporate lawyer) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Definition of ‘Tax fraud' & procedure for ‘arrest': There will be no amendment in Act: MoS
ISLAMABAD: Minister of State for Finance, Bilal Azhar Kayani Thursday said the government will not amend Finance Act 2025 to further change definition of tax fraud or procedure for arrest, but the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) will issue sales tax explanatory circular to address all concerns of the business community. Kayani informed Senate Standing Committee on Finance on Thursday that the prime minister has strictly directed the FBR not to harass the taxpayers, particularly, business and trade. After detailed meetings with the federation and chambers, the government has started internal homework to resolve these issues. 'I will not share specific details as we are in IMF programme. However, all concerns of the business community will be addressed', he said. We have given assurance to the business community that it is our responsibility that the law should not be misused by the tax officials. There is a misunderstanding that law of arrest of tax evaders is a new law, he maintained. Finance Act expands definition of tax fraud Presidents of chambers of commerce and industries are well aware of the developments. A committee has also been formed to resolve issues in 30 days' period, he said. President Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) Muhammad Jawed Bilwani requested the committee to abolish clause 9 of the Section 37A (power to inquire, investigate offences warranting prosecution under this Act and arrest of a person). The arrest of taxpayer on the basis of 'suspicion' has also been challenged by Bilwani. However, committee members insisted that ample safeguards have been placed to check any misuse of the powers of the tax officials. In case of 'suspicion', there should be definite information of tax fraud for arresting the accused person, they said. Minister of State for Finance stated that there is some kind of misunderstanding between the FBR and business community. The government has placed additional safeguards in Finance Act 2025 to ensure that arrest powers should not be misused. Earlier, arrests were made by officials of the level of Additional Commissioners and now a committee comprising of senior FBR Members will give approval of the arrests. Bilal Azhar Kayani stated that it has also been decided to convene monthly meeting with the business community to review impact of the law on the businessmen. FBR Member (Inland Revenue - Operations) Dr Hamid Ateeq Sarwar said that Finance Act 2025 should not be amended at this early stage of promulgation. We should not create any embarrassment for the Parliament and it would not be appropriate to suddenly change the sales tax law after promulgation of the Finance Act 2025. He said that the purpose of the law is to take action against those involved in fraudulent business of fake/flying invoices. In 2024-25, the FBR prevented revenue loss of Rs837 billion on account of fake invoices. In 2023-24, tax fraud of Rs1,373 billion was prevented. The FBR Member said that the FBR has addressed all concerns of the business community through a sales tax circular. The FBR will clarify that arrest would not be made without clear evidence against the taxpayer. This issue will also be clarified through the circular. The FBR has also consisted Grievance Redressal Committee to address issues of the business community. If any tax officer has made a wrong case against the taxpayer, he would be punished. He dispelled impression that the FBR do not take action against the corrupt tax officials. 'You just simply go through the FBR website (Admin Wing-HRMS), the numbers of tax officials penalized has been made public.' The FBR Member said that both the Senate and National Assembly Standing Committees on Finance read clause by clause the entire Finance Bill and also proposed comprehensive changes in the sales tax law. Due to limited time, there were apprehensions that the anomy committee has not serious considered the issues of stakeholders. The business community has not been targeted in any way through Finance Act 2025. The responsibility to prove tax fraud has now been placed on the FBR, he said. Let the law come into effect as significant improvement in the law has been made to facilitate the business community, the FBR Member added. Chairman of the Finance committee said that the government has no intention to victimise business community. If the FBR's clarification is acceptable to business community then the law should remain in force for 2025-26. There is no need to amend Finance Act 2025 in case all issues are addressed by the FBR. Representative of the Faisalabad chamber of commerce and industry observed that we are not afraid of the law of arrest but we are concerned about the blackmailing by the tax officers in the field formations. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Has Rs1.71/unit electricity relief vanished?
It was widely expected that the government would continue the Rs1.71 per unit electricity subsidy component—backed by the IMF staff-level agreement, which explicitly cited plans to fund the relief via additional Petroleum Levy collections. Yet, to the surprise of many, the subsidy appears to have quietly disappeared—if not formally withdrawn, then at least absent from the electricity bills issued for July 2025. Recall that the only component explicitly extended into FY26 was the Rs182 billion relief—equivalent to Rs1.71 per unit—for all non-lifeline consumers, financed through the enhanced Petroleum Levy. The government, in its communication with the IMF, had committed to maintaining this limited relief until June 30, 2026. Significant ambiguity now surrounds the fate of this relief and its continuity into FY26. The matter came up during Nepra's recent tariff hearing, but the Ministry of Energy's remarks did little to resolve the uncertainty. In its response, the Ministry noted that the 'average applicable consumer tariff in July 2025 would be lower by around seven rupees compared to July 2024.' While ostensibly reassuring, the phrasing raises more questions than it answers. No assumptions were disclosed, nor was it clarified whether the comparison referred to gross billing or adjustments embedded within the base tariff trajectory. With the Rs1.71 per unit subsidy now seemingly off the table, the month-on-month increase in tariffs for non-lifeline protected consumers—who account for the bulk of domestic electricity consumption—exceeds 30 percent. Previously, under the assumption of subsidy continuity, first and second protected slabs were projected to rise by 11 and 9 percent, respectively. They now stand to increase by 35 and 26 percent, respectively. Among non-protected slabs, effective tariffs for the first three categories are slated to rise by 12, 9, and 8 percent month-on-month. This development implies that effective tariffs in July may be materially higher than assumed—at odds with both prior policy signalling and the inflation projections built on that premise. Whether this reflects a temporary lapse awaiting formal notification, an oversight in tariff design, or a quiet policy reversal is yet to be clarified. What is clear, however, is that this shift—if sustained—has real implications that one hopes the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) appropriately incorporates any change in effective tariffs into its CPI computation, lest the official inflation trajectory miss a key price signal affecting millions.
