Carbon surcharge a mistake, govt admits in court

ISLAMABAD: The government’s top lawyer conceded before the Supreme Court on Thursday that the levy of carbon surcharge was a mistake.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Appearing before a three-judge bench of the apex court hearing petitions challenging an increase in prices of petroleum products, Attorney General Sardar Latif Khosa placed on record a copy of the ordinance promulgated by President Asif Ali Zardari to introduce the petroleum development levy.

The Petroleum Development Levy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, increased the prices of petroleum products which the government had lowered to implement an interim order of the Supreme Court a day earlier.

The ordinance raised the price of premium motor petrol to Rs62.13 per litre from Rs50.19, HOBC to Rs78.78 from Rs59.12, high-speed diesel to Rs62.65, light diesel to Rs54.94 and kerosene to Rs59.35.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, through the interim order, had suspended the carbon surcharge on petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-N secretary general Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and Rukhsana Zuberi of the Pakistan People’s Party.

The attorney general said the government had implemented the decision of the Supreme Court by withdrawing notification of the carbon surcharge and agreed with the court’s observation that it was meant to generate funds to control pollution.

Declaring the interim order infructuous, the bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed and Justice Mahmood Akhtar, adjourned the hearing for four weeks.

Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, the counsel for Mr Jhagra, argued that the court could reduce the prices of petroleum products even in the presence of the ordinance.

‘The ordinance has been promulgated with a mala fide intention and is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.’ He indicated that it would be challenged through a separate petition.

He said the ordinance had been promulgated to give a message to the International Monetary Fund that a tax netting Rs122 billion would be imposed on petroleum products in any case.

Ikram Chaudhry said that carbon surcharge alone had not been challenged. A plea had also been made that till a final decision on the petitions, the prices of petroleum products be brought back to the June 30 position, with a reasonable and rationalised reduction.

The counsel also objected to the issuance of the ordinance, saying that it was tantamount to interference in the functioning of the judiciary.

‘It was ultra vires of the Constitution and the president has no right to impose taxes.’

The court observed that since in pursuance of the order of July 7, the carbon surcharge had been withdrawn by means of the aforesaid ordinance, CMA No.2080/2009 had become infructuous and it was disposed of accordingly.

It held that so far as the question of reducing the prices of petroleum products was concerned, the matter still pending. It will be decided on the basis of the material available on record as well as the report submitted by the Justice Bhagwandas commission.

Copies of the report of the commission have already been supplied to all parties concerned.Akram Sheikh placed on record an issue-wise analysis of the commission report.

The court desired a similar exercise by the other learned counsel appearing in the case so as to facilitate quick resolution of the issue.

The court also impleaded Iftikhar Ahmed as a co-petitioner in the constitutional petition No 33 of 2005 because it viewed that the interest of both the parties was not in conflict with each other in any manner.

The court held that Khalid Anwar, who was representing oil companies, was on general adjournment and hearing of the case in his presence was necessary in view of the report of the commission in respect of the oil companies.

Popularity: 1% [?]