ISLAMABAD: Federal Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s lawyer Tariq Hassan Friday submitted his client’s tax record for 34 years in Supreme Court for Panama Case proceeding.
A three-member SC bench comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan resumed the hearing of Panamagate during which Tariq Hassan presented his arguments on behalf of his client.
Justice Ijaz remarked you have brought such a big box, which will remain under discussion on television channels for rest of the days whereas Justice Azmat asked the counsel that are you following Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
Justice Ejaz, further added that it may lead to investigation against the finance minister, since Ishaq Dar was involved in Huddaibiya Paper Mill and has failed to satisfy JIT.
In response to it, Tariq Hassan said that record was presented before JIT but it did not consider it.
Justice Ijaz said that Dar’s assets have increased from Rs9 million to Rs837 million in span of five years. Justice Ijaz further asked about the pay of Dar as Sheikh Nahyan Mubarak’s advisor. It is highly illogical to say that Sheikh gave Dar Rs800 million in this time period, he added.
Justice Ijaz questioned under what circumstances Ishaq Dar got contract over which Tariq Hassan gave an example, saying he earns Rs0.2 million as a lawyer.
Earlier on the behalf of Ishaq Dar, additional documents, along with letters from NAB and FIA were submitted before the SC. Documents also included dispatches from Dubai’s Sheikh, bank returns and written answer to court’s observations.
The federal minister’s reply stated that his overseas income has been merged with local assets, and that he had not given or received any amount of money from Hill Metal Company.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the apex bench had ordered the lawyer to submit documents to establish that the minister had filed his income tax returns between 1981-82 and 2001-02, as well as wealth tax returns from 1985 to 2007.
The bench had passed the order after expressing displeasure with the lawyer’s assertion that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had been unable to provide the tax returns to the JIT because they had been taken away by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
