> 17.37 hrs.
STATUTORY RESOLUTION RE: DISAPPROVAL OF TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2003
AND
TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2003
Title : Combined discussion on the motion for consideration of disapproval of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 moved by Shri Basudeb Acharia and consideration of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2003, moved by Shri Jaswant Singh. (Not concluded).
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House shall now take up Item No. 19 and 20 together.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (BANKURA): Sir, I beg to move :
“That this House disapproves of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 (No.2 of 2003) promulgated by the President on 8th September, 2003.”
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI JASWANT SINGH): Sir, I beg to move:
“That the Bill further to amend the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987, be taken into consideration.”
(LATUR): Sir, I am objecting to the Government having issued so many Ordinances. Certainly, the Constitution gives them a right to issue Ordinances but this right is given to the Executive to cope up with the difficult situations. When there is an urgency or an emergency, this is done, and not in ordinary course. Even when the House is meeting in one month’s time, they are issuing Ordinances. And, the consequence of Ordinances is that when the Ordinance is placed before the House and when the Bill is moved here, it does not go to the Standing Committee.
Sir, this House has provided that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee for dispassionate examination by a small group of MPs who are interested in matters of this kind.
Now, here the Government is using this power of promulgating Ordinances in order to get any law passed by this House. This is denigration of legislature itself. Why has the Government done it? What is the explanation of the Government? What was the urgency? The Government has to explain this when the Ordinance is moved. We would like to know what the urgency was and why the Government has done it. We are not finding fault with any individual as such, but we are finding fault with the attitude of the Government to the legislature itself, the Parliament itself. What for this Parliament exists? You promulgate the Ordinance, you send it to the President and then you come here and say that this is an Ordinance and so, it has to be passed. What was the urgency? Why was it done? We would like to know that. Not one Ordinance was promulgated, but there are seven of them. Seven Ordinances have come to the House promulgated within a month’s time. They could not wait even for one month or they could not wait for two months. What was the urgency? We would like to know that.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : This Government, during the inter-Session period, always promulgates a number of Ordinances. Last time also, this was pointed out by me. Last time, at least six Ordinances were promulgated during the inter-Session period.
This time, seven Ordinances were promulgated, and that too, all these Ordinances were promulgated within one week. The House was to meet on the first week of December. This Ordinance was promulgated on the 8th September 2003. There was no urgency, as I could see from the Statement of the Minister made in regard to the circumstances which had necessitated immediate legislation on Taxation Laws. Now, this Ordinance is to be replaced by an Act. But there was no urgency.
A number of times, there have been observations by the Chair that the Government should not ordinarily resort to promulgation of Ordinance. The first Speaker of Lok Sabha, Shri Mavlankar, on 25th November 1950 had observed:
“The procedure of promulgation of Ordinance is inherently undemocratic. Whether an Ordinance is justifiable or not, the issue of a large number of Ordinances has psychologically a bad effect. The people carry an impression that Government is carried out by Ordinances. The House carries a sense of being ignored, and the General Secretariat perhaps get into the habit of slackness which necessitates Ordinances. And an impression is created that it is desired to commit the House to a particular legislation as the House has no alternative but to put its seal on matters that have been legislated upon by Ordinances. Such a state of things is not conducive to the development of the best parliamentary relations.”
He again wrote a letter to the First Prime Minister of India on the 15th December 1950, wherein Shri Mavlankar had said like this.
“I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that the issue of Ordinance is normally not desirable and should be avoided except on special and urgent occasions. But when such an occasion may or may not arise, it is a matter of judgement. Not only Government of a State but private Members of Parliament are continually urging that new legislation should be passed. The parliamentary procedure is sufficient to give fullest opportunities for the consideration and debate and to check errors and mistakes creeping in. That is obviously desirable. But all this involves considerable delay. The result is, important legislation is held up. Every Parliament in the world has to face difficult problems and various proposals have been made to overcome them.”
In regard to Ordinances on financial matter and on taxation, a specific observation was made by the first Speaker of Lok Sabha. On 15th November 1971 when the Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Affairs sought to lay on the Table copies of 13 Ordinances issued by the President during preceding inter-Session period, an objection was raised that never before in the history of Parliament so many Ordinances were issued during any particular inter-Session. Then the Speaker observed:
“I agree with you that so many Ordinances should not have been issued. I personally think it is not a light matter to be ignored. ”
In regard to Ordinances which had imposed certain levies, the Speaker observed:
“If you think that there should be some distinction between financial and non-financial and tax and non-tax Ordinances, there is nothing in my knowledge on which I can base my ruling. Shall I say that I do not approve of an Ordinance just at the time when the House is about to meet?”
Sir, these are the observations made by the first Speaker of Lok Sabha, Shri Mavalankar. Now these Ordinances were promulgated in the month of September. We find that there was no urgency. What is the proposal of the Government? It says that the interest rates prevailing in the market were falling and there was an urgent need to revive the interest rates payable by the assessee or payable to the assessee under Income Tax Act of 1961.
When did the Minister find that interest rate is falling and that an immediate Ordinance has to be promulgated to arrest it? Was it in the month of September? If it was in the month of July, why was a Bill not brought? The Standing Committees are there. The Speaker had observed that all the Bills which are introduced in the House should be sent to the Standing Committee and those Bills should be scrutinised by the Standing Committee. But when an Ordinance is promulgated, there is no scope for its scrutiny by the Standing Committee. It has to be passed by Parliament. Why is this wrong procedure being adopted and a wrong precedent is being set by this Government?
In the last Session, at least six Ordinances were promulgated and passed by this House and this time seven Ordinances have been promulgated and now they have been brought before the House. What was the necessity for this? Another reason has been given by the Minister that certain problems were being faced by the exporters of wood based handicraft items who despite exporting about 100 per cent of their said products, co uld not avail of the benefits which are available up to 100 per cent to export oriented units and units in the Special Economic Zones.
It is because they were unable to comply with the associated conditions such as custom bonded warehouses, restrictions on transfer of goods, complete restrictions on the use of indigenous wood etc. In view of this, an urgent need was felt to provide for special deduction of 100 per cent of profit derived from the export of wood-based handicraft items. I support this proposal. But I do not find any urgency in this. The hon. Minister could have waited for this Session and brought in a Bill on this. The Standing Committee is always asked to give their recommendations expeditiously. Maybe, within 15 days the Standing Committee also could have scrutinised the Bill and it could have been brought before the House. But that procedure has not been adopted here. I do not find any urgency in this matter.
Sir, why is it only in case of wood-based handicraft items? When you are allowing it for wood-based handicraft items, why are you not allowing for other items as well? There are thousands of artisans who are dependent on an economic activity based on conch shells. The customs duty was increased to 30 per cent on this. Previously there was no customs duty for importing conch shells. The hon. Minister had reduced it but still there is a five per cent customs duty on this item. I requested him saying that when he has reduced it to five per cent, why can he not totally exempt the poor artisans from paying a duty on import of conch shells from countries like Sri Lanka? Thousands of artisans are dependent on an economic activity based on this in the State of West Bengal.
Sir, I do not find any urgency in regard to the concessions that is being proposed to be given to the ship wrecking industry not in our country but for those in foreign countries. This was not anything urgent. The Government could have waited for this Session.
Sir, I oppose this move of the Government of bringing in so many ordinances in order to avoid the Standing Committees. Without any urgency they have brought in all these ordinances. Also, the observations made by the former Speakers on a number of occasions are also not being complied with by this Government. I want your observations on this as to whether resorting to so many ordinances are undemocratic or not, an issue on which there have been so many observations by former hon. Speakers of this House. I would request you to give your observations.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are already precedents of such things. I can only repeat them.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Sir, you please repeat them.
SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (LATUR) : Sir, this is a very strange case. This is exactly surrendering the economic sovereignty of the country. Some of the foreign companies are wanting to have some kind of concessions and so this is being done. The Government should give them concessions by all means but not by avoiding the House. Heavens would not have fallen if it was brought in the form of a Bill. Seven ordinances have been promulgated. This Legislature should hold the Government accountable for this kind of a legislative activity. They are doing it in favour of some foreign companies. This is all the more reason for us to take objection to their promulgating ordinances. We are saying what we have to say. The former Presiding Officers have said what they wanted to say and yet this practice is being continued. Can they not be told that this is not to be done? If it is done, then it is neither favouring the Opposition nor the Ruling Party. This is patently wrong. The Constitution has given the Government the right to promulgate an ordinance but that is for overcoming a difficult situation. But this has become a regular practice. There are seven Ordinances. Seven Ordinances mean seven laws. If we are sitting here for 15 days, half of the period will be devoted to Ordinances. Should it be neglected? Should it not be considered by us and that too, when it is in order to favour somebody who is coming from outside? This is not correct. This should not be done. Why is it done? This point should be explained.