Premium
This is an archive article published on May 1, 1997

PAC calls for ITC case details

NEW DELHI, April 30: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has sought details of the provisional tax assessment cases against ITC group of co...

.

NEW DELHI, April 30: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has sought details of the provisional tax assessment cases against ITC group of companies and Hindustan Lever from the Ministry of Finance.

The PAC, in its 14th report tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, pointed out that the Finance Ministry should go into the details of cases of ITC and Hindustan Lever and "furnish them a report indicating the precise reasons as to why cases of provisional assessments in respect of these two assesses have been kept pending and also furnish an up-dated position of their disposal."

width="1px" height="1px" style="display:none;">

The report quoting information furnished by the Finance Ministry pointed out that in case of ITC group of companies, provisional assessments involving differential duty of Rs 48.83 crores were pending with various commissionerates of central excise. It added, "out of these, assessments involving differential duty of Rs 39.05 crore were pending with the Department of Revenue."

Story continues below this ad

Similarly, the PAC report pointed out, in case of Hindustan Lever provisional assessments involving differential duty of Rs 39.05 crores were pending with various commissionerates. Out of these, assessments involving duty of Rs 29.69 crore were pending with the Department.

The Committee, which was headed by senior BJP leader, Murli Manohar Joshi, stated that as many as 2157 cases of provisional assessment involving differential duty of Rs 2079.55 crores were pending finalisation as on December 1996. Out of these, 816 cases involving Rs 959.55 crores had been pending over a period of three years. About 836 cases involving differential duty of Rs 1424.57 crore were pending over a period of two years.

The extent of pendency, the report said, "is indicative of not only a systemic neglect but also a possible connivance to extend financial benefits to assesses.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement