PHC extends stay in GIDC arrears recovery case

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday extended stay order in the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess (GIDC) arrears recovery of billions of rupees from industrial units and Compressed Natural Gas stations of the province through monthly bills till the next order.

A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Ghazanfar Ali extended the stay order.

It restrained the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) from collecting the GIDC arrears through monthly gas bills from CNG stations and industrial units of the province and disconnecting the gas supply.

The bench passed the directions in two identical writ petitions. These were filed by All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (APTMA) and CNGs stations. It transferred the cases to the court of Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth for the next hearing.

The bench issued notice to Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), SNGPL, and federal government through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to submit reply.

During hearing, the lawyers submitted that the provisions of GIDC Act, 2015 are not “self-executing provisions” and thus cannot be given effect without necessary subordinate legislation in shape of Rules.

They contended that the federal government was imposing the cess without framing rules under the law.

The lawyers prayed to the court to stop the SNGPL from recovery of the GIDC arrears in monthly bills till framing of the rules under the law as the present recovery is against the law and illegal. It was submitted that to date the “time of payment” has not been prescribed and since there is nothing prescribed that GIDC payment is to be made monthly and not otherwise (such as annually, biannually or in any other recurring interval), therefore charging the same monthly in the monthly consumption bills is absolutely unwarranted and thus not maintainable in the eyes of law. The lawyers pointed out that the impugned demand of GIDC arrears and its inclusion in the monthly gas consumption bill, both were in violation of the law, which the respondents were trying to implement.