Govt. to meet activists again on GM mustard
Regulator cleared the variety on May 12
•Union Minister for Environment Harsh Vardhan will have a fresh consultation with environmental groups, scientists, and farmers’ bodies before taking a call on the release of genetically modified (GM) mustard.
•“There have been representations from various quarters. Over the next month, he is likely to hear them out, especially groups that are opposed to the introduction of GM mustard,” a senior official of the Ministry told The Hindu . The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), India’s regulator for genetically modified seeds, had on May 12, 2017 cleared GM mustard for environmental release and use in fields.
•Though it was cleared by scientists, the Environment Minister’s approval is required. Before his death on May 18, Anil Dave, the then Minister, was deliberating on the GEAC’s report and the future course of action.
‘No time line’
•Dr. Vardhan, it is learnt, has been briefed of the technical aspects of the making of GM mustard, the commercial necessity and the objections raised so far to it. “There is no timeline for the final decision. But it is likely to be announced next month,” the official said.
Bid to remove Justice Reddy fails again
Nine RS MPs have withdrawn their signatures from proposal to the President
•For the second time in six months, a motion to introduce proceedings to remove Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Hyderabad High Court has failed.
•Nine of the 54 members of the Rajya Sabha, who had proposed the initiation of proceedings against him, have withdrawn their signatures. “Some signatories to the petition have withdrawn their names. So, there is no motion for his removal,” said a senior Rajya Sabha Member.
Charge against Reddy
•Justice Reddy has been accused of victimising a Dalit junior civil court judge, S. Rama Krishna, for refusing to remove the name of the former’s brother, Pawan Kumar Reddy, from the dying declaration of a person in 2012. Proceedings to remove a judge, which require an address to the President by a special majority of both Houses of Parliament, cannot be initiated without the signatures of at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha.
•If such a motion gets admitted in a House, a three-member committee investigates the charges. If it finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the House in which the motion was initiated, must pass it with a two-thirds majority, followed by a similar passage by the other House.
•If this happens, an address is made to the President for the removal of the judge.
‘Cattle sale curbs will help to regulate trade’
SC issues notice to Centre on petitions
•The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that its notification banning the sale and purchase of cattle at animal markets for slaughter was aimed at having a “regulatory regime” for the cattle trade nationwide.
•The Centre’s submission came as the court sought its response to the pleas challenging the May 26 notification under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, banning sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter. A Vacation Bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and S.K. Kaul issued notice to the government and asked it to file its reply to the pleas within two weeks and scheduled hearing of the matter for July 11.
•At the brief hearing, Additional Solicitor-General P.S. Narasimha said the aim of the notification was to have some kind of a regulatory regime for cattle trade.
•He said the notification would also check irregularities in markets and would not affect genuine traders. When one of the petitioners requested the Bench to stay the notification, Mr. Narasimha said the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had already granted an interim stay and the notification would not be enforced as of now.
Disability rights groups protest GST
Write to Finance Minister opposing imposition of levy on assistive devices, hitherto exempt from tax
•Disability rights organisations have written to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, protesting the decision of the GST Council to impose taxes on a range of aids used by persons with disabilities (PWDs) that were hitherto exempt from any tax.
•They have also sent copies of their representation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, Thawar Chand Gehlot.
•“All devices and products such as Braille typewriter, hearing aid, crutches, etc are currently exempt from sales tax/VAT/excise/customs, but they are not exempt from GST,” said a statement issued by the Disability Rights Organisations Forum (DROF), a coalition of disability rights groups.
•The GST Council has proposed to levy GST ranging from 5% to 18% on a range of equipment used by PWDs.
•Pointing out that many of the items are beyond the reach of the common PWD, the note stated that levying GST on them “militates against the spirit and mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which obliges the State to provide all aforesaid assistive devices, equipments and Braille books to persons with disabilities either free or at affordable cost.”
‘Manifold hike’
•“A book in Braille even at present costs not less than five times more than the cost of a print version of the same book. Imposition of 12% GST on Braille paper will hike the costs of Braille books manifold,” said the note. The government has proposed a GST of 18% on Braille typewriters, 12% on hearing aids, 12% on Braille watches, and 5% on wheelchairs, crutches, and artificial limbs. “Imposing GST on products such as Braille paper, hearing aids, and wheelchairs is a threat to the basic rights of PWDs, such as the right to education and freedom of mobility,” said Muralidharan, Secretary of the National Platform of the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD).
•“If the government truly cares about disabled persons, it can easily exempt these items from GST,” Muralidharan said, adding, “There is enough evidence that it knows its priorities. For instance, there is no GST on puja samagri such asrudraksha mala , panchamrit and chandan tika . But life-critical devices such as wheelchairs and crutches aren’t exempt. Does the government want us to stay at home all day and do puja?”
Call for withdrawal
•“We urge the Finance Minister to prevail upon the GST Council to withdraw the proposal to impose GST on aids and appliances used by persons with disabilities,” said the DROF statement.
•Disability rights organisations protesting the proposed GST rates include NPRD, National Federation of the Blind, National Association of the Blind, All Indian Federation of the Deaf, Human Rights Law Network, Sense International, Federation of Disability Rights, and Association of People Affected by Leprosy.
Builders told to pass on GST benefits
Construction of flats, complexes, buildings will have a lower incidence of GST, CBEC says
•The Central Board of Excise and Customs on Thursday warned builders to refrain from hoodwinking customers by claiming that the GST rate of 12% that applies to them will be levied on the original cost of the building.
•The CBEC said that it has received reports that builders are forcing customers to pay the entire cost of the flat before July 1 and pay the current tax rate of 5.5% or pay 12% on any payments made after July 1, which is when GST is expected to be rolled out. This, the tax authority said, is against the GST legislation.
•“The CBEC and States have received several complaints that in view of the works contract service tax rate under GST at 12% in respect of under construction flats, complex, etc, the people who have booked flats and made part payment are being asked to make entire payment before July 1, 2017 or to face higher tax incidence for payment made after July 1, 2017. This is against the GST law,” the CBEC statement said.
•“Construction of flats, complex, buildings will have a lower incidence of GST as compared to a plethora of central and state indirect taxes suffered by them under the existing regime,” the statement added.
•“Suppose you buy a flat for Rs. 1 crore. The builder charges 4.5% service tax, and 1% composition. So, that’s Rs. 5.5 lakh in tax,” Abhishek Jain, Partner at EY India explained. “However, the builder was buying inputs on which there was excise duty and VAT, and there was no credit on this. When he factors this in, then, say that his cost of building the flat was Rs. 95 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh were the input costs.”
•“Using the same example, in GST, the cost of the builder will be Rs. 95 lakh, but the Rs. 5 lakh that is excise and VAT on inputs will no longer be a cost,” Mr. Jain added. “So, ideally, he should say the cost of the building is Rs. 95 lakh and then the customer has to pay the 12% GST on that Rs. 95 lakh. But what the builders are trying to do is tell the customers that since they have already agreed to pay Rs. 1 crore for the flat, the 12% tax will apply on that Rs. 1 crore and not on the new cost of the flat, which is Rs. 95 lakh.”
Reduced prices
•“The builders are expected to pass on the benefits of lower tax burden under the GST regime to the buyers of property by way of reduced prices/instalments,” the statement added.
•“It is, therefore, advised to all builders/construction companies that in the flats under construction, they should not ask customers to pay higher tax rate on instalments to be received after imposition of GST.”
•“Despite this clarity on law position, if any builder resorts to such practice, the same can be deemed to be profiteering under section 171 of GST law.”
‘Lenient view initially on GST compliance’
The tax regime will rollout on July 1
•Union Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal, on Thursday assured trade and industry that the government will initially take a lenient view of their mistakes on the GST compliance front so long as there is no “malafide intent.”
•“We will be initially liberal to (those committing) bonafide and technical mistakes,” he said, adding that the government will be approaching such issues with an open mind. Those with a malafide intent, however, need not “rely on us,” he added. The Minister’s comments came in the backdrop of demands for pushing back GST implementation and for the government to adopt a lenient view to the concerns of trade and industry in the first few months. The Centre is committed to rolling out GST on July 1. The date is fixed and there will be no change, Mr. Meghwal said.
•GST will fetch several indirect benefits, including reducing the logistics charges from the existing 13.5%.
Government unveils tit-for-tat public procurement policy
Nations that exclude Indian suppliers will face similar curbs
•Entities from countries where Indian suppliers are not allowed to participate or compete in bids for government procurement, may be restricted or excluded from public procurement tenders in India.
•Such a provision, relating to “reciprocity,” has been included in the Indian government’s new policy to encourage ‘Make in India’ by granting preference to local suppliers in public procurement.
•“If a nodal ministry is satisfied that Indian suppliers of an item are not allowed to participate and/or compete in procurement by any foreign government, it may, if it deems appropriate, restrict or exclude bidders from that country from eligibility for procurement of that item and/or other items relating to the nodal ministry,” according to the Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India), Order 2017.
•A five-member committee chaired by the Secretary in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has been set up to oversee the implementation of the policy. The committee “may assess issues, if any, where it is felt that the manner of implementation of the order results in any restrictive practices, cartelisation or increase in public expenditure and suggest remedial measures.”
•The policy — approved by the Cabinet last month — is aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing and services, thereby creating employment and enhancing income, as well as to stimulate the flow of capital and technology into domestic manufacturing and services.
No time to work
With ratification of conventions on child labour, we must have assessment of violations
•In a welcome move this week, India has ratified two key global conventions meant to keep children away from work, decades since they were originally adopted by the International Labour Organisation. Nonetheless, the scepticism aroused by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 over the government’s commitment towards complete abolition of child labour will persist. The ILO treaties are about the minimum age at which a person may begin work and the hazardous industries where she may not. Crucially, conventions 138 and 182 of the United Nations body leave it to the member-states to determine what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable work for children at different ages. Such flexibility has given the Indian government wiggle room in adopting the international standards in question, even though the 2016 legislation falls several notches below a comprehensive prohibition of child labour. The Act contains the controversial provision that condones the employment of children below 14 years under the rubric of family enterprises and the declassification of several industries as hazardous occupations. The detrimental effects on the ground from these dilutions of the original 1986 Act could be widespread. With roughly 90% of the workforce continuing to remain outside the ambit of the organised sector, protecting vulnerable children from exploitation is difficult. The rules notified by the Ministry of Labour and Employment for the enforcement of the 2016 amendment include some small concessions. Under these stipulations, children may work in domestic enterprises only for three hours after school, and not between 7 p.m. and 8 a.m. These restrictions are intended to ensure attendance at school. But given the sensitivities involved in monitoring activities within traditional households, effective enforcement will pose a challenge, and the rescue of vulnerable children will remain an uncertain proposition.
•India’s ratification of the two conventions, after more than 165 countries have legally bound themselves to their obligations, is itself a sad commentary on the priorities of successive governments, cutting across party lines. The ILO’s Minimum Age Convention of 1973 entered into force in 1976 — and the instrument pertaining to the elimination of the worst forms of child labour in 2000. While policymakers are no doubt alert to the inequities that perennially plague Indian society, the practical realities are too painful for the millions who languish on the margins. Any genuine enforcement of a minimum age at work will elude governments so long as a universal minimum wage of subsistence for the adult workforce is not implemented scrupulously. On this score, the record of different States is at best patchy. This scenario is unlikely to improve in the absence of a vibrant mechanism of collective bargaining among stakeholders. Without this, the total elimination of child labour will remain a difficult task.
