God can't survive science, says 'Da Vinci Code' author

New Delhi, Jun 12: The Supreme Court on Friday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to convene a meeting of the Finance Ministry and RBI officials over the weekend to decide whether interest incurred on EMIs during the moratorium period can be charged by banks.

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah queried Mehta as the court was concerned since the Centre has deferred loan for three months.

"Then how can interest of these 3 months be added?" the apex bench asked. Mehta replied: "I need to sit down with the RBI officials and have a meeting."

SBI's counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, intervened during the proceedings and said "all banks are of the view that interest cannot be waived for a six month EMI moratorium period".

"We need to discuss it with the RBI," insisted Rohatgi.

Justice Bhushan then asked Mehta to convene a meeting of the RBI and Finance Ministry officials over the weekend, and listed the matter for further hearing on June 17.

The top court, during the hearing, indicated that it was not considering a complete waiver of interest but was only concerned that postponement of interest shouldn't accrue further interest on it.

After the RBI said the waiver of interest charges on EMIs during moratorium will lead to loss of 1 per cent of the nation's GDP, the top court had earlier asked the Finance Ministry to reply, whether the interest could be waived or it would continue during the moratorium period.

The top court said these are not normal times, and it is a serious issue, as on one hand moratorium is granted and then, the interest is charged on loans during this period.

"There are two issues in this (matter). No interest during the moratorium period and no interest on interest," said Justice Bhushan. The observation from the bench came on a petition by Gajendra Sharma, in which he sought a direction to declare portion of the RBI's March 27 notification as ultra vires to the extent it charged interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period.

The GST Council is unlikely to make major changes in the indirect tax structure at its next meeting slated mid June.

A top government source said that the Centre is not in favour of increasing tax rates on any goods or service as it could further impact consumption and demand that is already suppressed due the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown.

It was widely expected that the GST Council could consider raising tax rates and cess on certain non-essential items to boost revenue for states and the Centre. Several states have reportedly taken an over 80-90 per cent hit in GST collections in April, the official data for which has not yet been released by the Centre.

"The need of the hour is to boost consumption and improve demand. By categorising items into essential and non-essential and then raising taxes on non-essential is not what Centre favours. But, the issue on rates and relief will be decided by the GST Council that is meeting next month," the finance ministry official source quoted above said.

The GST Council is chaired by the Union finance minister and thus the views of the Centre play out strongly in the council meetings.

However, the Council will also have to balance the expectations of the states whose revenues have nosedived after the coronavirus outbreak and wide scale disruption to businesses while they have still not been paid GST compensation since the December-January period.

To the question of wider scale job losses in the period of lockdown as businesses get widely impacted, the official said that the Finance Ministry has asked the labour ministry to collect data on job losses during Covid-19 and is constantly engaging with the ministry to oversee job losses and salary cuts.

On restrictions put on Chinese investment in India, the official clarified that no decision had yet been taken to restrict China through the Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) route.

Asked about monetising government debt, the official said that the issue would be looked at when we reach a stage. It has not come to that stage yet.

In the government's over Rs 20 lakh crore economic package, the official defended its structure while suggesting that comparisons with the economic packages of other countries should not be drawn as India's needs were different from others.

"We have gone in more reforms that is needed to give strength to the economy. This is required more in our country," the official source said.

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.