Islamabad: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday stopped the government from blocking mobile phone sim of tax non-filers.

According to the details, Chief Justice IHC Aamer Farooq issued a restraining order till May 27 on the request of the mobile phone company.

It is pertinent to note that an agreement has been reached between the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and telecom operators on the issue of blocking the sims of non-filers across the country, under which the series of blocking the sims of non-filers was started from May 10. 

According to FBR, on May 10, details of sim blocking of 5,000 non-filers were provided to telecom operators.

According to FBR officials, telecom operators had agreed to manually block sims in small batches.

FBR has decided to impose 90 percent additional withholding tax instead of 1.5% on more than 0.57 million non-filers.

According to media reports, 90 percent additional withholding tax will be levied on non-filers till submission of income tax returns, if a non-filer user loads a balance of Rs100 out of which Rs90 will go to FBR.

If the mobile phone companies block the sims of these non-filers, even if they do not submit their income tax returns, then if they use another mobile phone sim, they will have to pay 90 percent additional tax on that too.

Additional tax will be applied on each load of non-filers, additional tax will also be applied on mobile and data load.

Islamabad: The Supreme Court Tuesday allowed former Prime Minister Imran Khan to appear via video link during the hearing against the nullification of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Amendments.

According to the details, a five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa is hearing the case, including Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Mandukhel, Justice Athar Minullah and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi.

The court proceedings are being broadcast live.

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Athar Minullah remarked that if the petitioner Imran Khan wants to appear in person in this case, then he should be presented here, he is a party in this case, how can we deny him the right to appear. It is a matter of NAB and it is his right to appear in personal capacity.

On this, the Chief Justice said: “This is a matter related to the constitution, not a matter of personal rights, how can a person who is not even a lawyer help us. Our order was that he can present arguments through his lawyer. We adjourn the hearing for five minutes and discuss it”.

On resuming the hearing after a break, the Supreme Court allowed Imran Khan to appear through video link.

The Supreme Court remarked that arrangements should be made for the appearance of Imran Khan through video link. The Chief Justice stated that it is a very strange situation that Imran Khan, who was the petitioner in this case and is now a party in the appeal, is not represented here. If the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) wants to give arguments, he can give do so via video link, which will be arranged.

The Chief Justice inquired from the court staff as to how long the video link will be arranged. The Attorney General requested a week's respite.

Later, the CJP directed the federal government to make arrangements for the appearance of Imran Khan through video link the day after tomorrow.

Later, Justice Athar Minullah remarked: “In my opinion a larger bench should be formed in this case, there are pending petitions in the High Courts regarding the constitutionality of the NAB Act. In this case we always ignore a case and that is the Benazir Bhutto case. The appeal of the federal government in the Benazir Bhutto case is inadmissible. The court has interpreted the affected party that the government cannot be the affected party.

On this occasion, Makhdoom Ali Khan informed the court that the appeal in the Customs case was filed by an officer, does the Federation have no right to defend the law it has made? There was no personal loss to the founder PTI from the NAB amendments.

The Chief Justice remarked that it would be appropriate for you to write your main points to us which will reach Imran through the court order so that he can respond, at that time the founder PTI is not listening to your arguments.

He said that this case is a matter of legal provisions, if we want to use ourselves for other purposes then fine.

Later, the lawyer of the federal government started reading the dissenting note of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

On this occasion, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel remarked that there was a question of interpretation of the constitutional provision in the NAB amendments. The counsel for the federal government replied that the NAB amendments were a question of examination under the Constitution.

Later, Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that see the words of what the main petitioner himself said. During the PTI era, the amendments were made through two Presidential Ordinances, later the coalition government maintained the amendments made through the Presidential Ordinance. Who drafted this petition, in 2021, the amendments made in PTI were declared unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked if this can be a remarkable argument?

Makhdoom Ali Khan further said that the amendments made by PTI were applied from 1985. The Chief Justice inquired whether we can compel Khawaja Haris to give arguments.

Justice Athar remarked that Khawaja Haris can be appointed as a judicial assistant. On which Justice Qazi replied that a judicial assistant is neutral, a lawyer who has been a lawyer for a party cannot be appointed as a judicial assistant.

Justice Athar Minullah further said: “As far as I remember when the ordinance came, the then government and Imran Khan supported these amendments. At that time, it was said that because of NAB, fundamental rights and economy are being affected”.

Addressing Justice Athar, Makhdoom Ali Khan said that his memory is very wonderful. PTI government's Law Minister and Finance Minister had been giving statements against NAB.

Justice Athar Minullah continued that here we have 57,000 pending cases, why should we waste time on this case. The good intention of the main petitioner was not proved in this case. Justice Mansoor Shah had rightly said that those who brought the case, why did they not play a role in Parliament. The matter of NAB amendments was in the High Court. Why should we give the time of other petitioner to this case? Parliament's amendments to the NAB Act were made in the light of PTI-era ordinances and court decisions. It was intended to protect the fundamental rights of persons against whom NAB's allegations were found to be false.

It is pertinent to note that on September 15 last year, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared a protective decision on the petition filed by former Prime Minister and then Chairman PTI Imran Khan against the NAB amendments and declared several clauses null and void.

In its decision, the Supreme Court has reinstated corruption cases against public officials, while NAB has been allowed to investigate corruption cases worth less than Rs500 million.

According to the decision, not only the cases, the inquiries and investigations were also restored, the cases which were declared invalid after the amendment by the NAB courts were also restored.

Apart from this, the Supreme Court ordered that all dismissed corruption cases be re-instated within a week in the accountability courts.

The decision also said that NAB should take action under the law under the provisions declared null and void. The amendments with assets more than income will be maintained to the extent of government officers. NAB amendments made regarding plea bargain are declared void.

In the decision, the orders given by the accountability courts in the light of the NAB amendments were declared null and void.

Later, on October 17, the federal government challenged the Supreme Court's September 15 decision regarding the NAB amendments declaring the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) illegal.

In the petition, requesting the court to restore the NAB amendments, the stand was adopted that the fundamental rights were not violated in the NAB amendments and legislation is the authority of the Parliament.

In the appeal, the Federation, NAB and ex-chairman PTI have been made parties and it has been said that the decision of the Supreme Court is in excess of the parliamentary authority.

More to follow...

Karachi: Jamat-e-Islami (JI) Tuesday announced a protest march against the government on May 16, saying that they will force the government to solve the problems.

While addressing a press conference in Karachi, Jamat-e-Islami Ameer Hafiz Naeem-ur-Rehman said that Jamat-e-Islami emerged as a major party in the local elections, the people of Karachi stand with it. JI is an organized party and an institution. It does not run on inheritance.

Naeem-ur-Rehman stated that Jamat-e-Islami will fight the case of Karachi throughout Pakistan. Karachi pays the highest tax in Pakistan and JI has decided not to leave the people alone.

JI Ameer added that the voice of Karachi will now be taken to the whole of Pakistan. Karachi is mini Pakistan, no party is involved in Karachi. Karachi is run on an ad hoc basis. The population of Karachi is 35 million. All three together have countered the population of Karachi. The issue of census should not be ignored.

He further said that package was announced on K-4 but K-4 project could not be done. S4 sewerage plan was not done, circular railway was inaugurated many times, no one wants to solve the problems of Karachi.

More to follow...