Zaman’s onslaught helps Pak defeat Australia, win T20 tri-series title

New Delhi, May 28: India is not at risk of losing hosting rights for next year's Twenty20 World Cup despite its cricket board's failure to secure a tax exemption for the event, a key BCCI official has told Reuters.

Tax exemptions for International Cricket Council (ICC) events are listed as a requirement in host agreements and the BCCI was supposed to confirm they had secured one by May 18.

ESPNcricinfo, citing correspondence between the two bodies, has reported that the ICC has threatened to shift the tournament away from India over the issue.

However, BCCI treasurer Arun Singh Dhumal told Reuters that would not happen and that negotiations were continuing.

"There is no risk to the tournament," he said by telephone.

"That is a work in progress. We are discussing it with the ICC and we'll resolve it."

The BCCI encountered a similar problem when it hosted the event in 2016 when the government refused to provide a tax exemption, and there has been no change in New Delhi's stance despite the board's appeals.

Failure to secure that exemption in 2016 saw the ICC withhold an equivalent sum from India's share of revenue from the governing body's grants and it appears to be taking an even harder line this time around.

"There are certain timelines within the agreements that we collectively work towards to ensure we can deliver successful world class events and continue to invest in the sport of cricket," an ICC spokesperson told Reuters.

"In addition to this the ICC Board agreed clear timelines for the resolution of the tax issues which we are guided by."

New Delhi, Feb 10: Former finance minister P Chidambaram on Monday tore into the Modi government's handling of the economy, saying it was close to collapse and was been attended by "very incompetent doctors."

Initiating the debate on the Union Budget for 2020-21, he said rising unemployment and falling consumption was making India poorer.

The economy, he said, is facing demand constraints and is investment starved. The economy is facing fall in consumption and rising unemployment.

"Fear and uncertainty prevails in the country," he added.

He said the chief economic advisor to the BJP government for four years, Arvind Subramanian has stated that the economy is in the ICU. But "I would say the patient has been kept out of ICU and incompetent doctors are looking at the patient," Chidambaram said.

"It is dangerous to have a patient out of ICU and being looked upon by incompetent doctors. What is the point standing around and chanting slogan 'Sab ka saath, sab ka vishwas'," he said, adding every competent doctor the Modi government could ever identify has left the country.

His said a list of such people included former RBI governor Raghurman Rajan, former CEA Arvind Subramanian, former RBI governor Urjit Patel and former NITI Aayog vice chairman Arvind Panagariya.

"Who are your doctors, I want to know," he said, adding the government considers Congress as untouchable and doesn't think of any good about the rest of the opposition and so doesn't consult them.

Chidambaram charged that instead of putting money in the hands of people, the Modi government "put money in hands of 200 corporates" by way of corporate tax.

He said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her 160- minute budget speech did not talk of the economy and its management.

"You are living in echo chambers. You want to hear your own voice," he said.

Listing problems with the Modi government, Chidambaram said it refuses to admits in mistakes, lives in denial and has predispositions.

The demonetisation of old 1000 and 500 rupee notes, as well as the hurried implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), are "monumental blunders" that ruined the economy, he said, adding the Modi regime is predisposed to protectionism, a 'strong' rupee and is against bilateral and multilateral agreements.

"It is living in denial," he said, adding the economic growth has fallen for hereto unseen six consecutive quarters.

He wondered on the narrative Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was trying to give after reading out a 160-minute budget speech with few pages left unread.

Her budget neither made any reference to the Economic Survey nor picked up a single idea from it, he said.

Chidambaram, who is credited with presenting a 'dream budget' more than two decades back, said the GDP growth has declined for six consecutive quarters, agriculture is growing by just 2 per cent, while consumer price inflation has risen from 1.9 per cent in January 2019 to 7.4 per cent in a matter of 11 months.

Also, food inflation is at 12.2 per cent. Bank credit is growing 8 per cent with non-food credit rising by 7-8 per cent and credit to industry by just 2.7 per cent. Credit to agriculture has declined from 18.3 per cent to 5.3 per cent and that for MSMEs from 6.7 per cent to 1.6 per cent.

Overall industrial index showed just 0.6 per cent growth. "Every major industry is either near zero or in negative zone," he said, adding thermal power plants are operating at just 55 per cent of the capacity as factories have either closed or are on the verge of closure.

"That gives you a good picture of the state of economy. You don't require MRI," he said. "You are in management for six years. How long can you blame previous managers."

He charged the government with burying unfavourable reports such as the labour survey that put unemployment at 45 -year high of 6.1 per cent at end of 2017-18. Also, consumer expenditure has falling to 3.7 per cent between 2011-12 and 2017-18.

Drilling holes in Budget numbers, he said the 2019-20 budget projected a nominal GDP growth of 12 per cent but ended with just 8.5 per cent. Fiscal deficit was targeted to be shrunk to 3.3 per cent of the GDP but ended by at 3.8 per cent and in the next fiscal it is being targeted at 3.5 per cent.

Revenue deficit was targeted at 2.3 per cent in fiscal ending March 31, 2020 but ended up at 2.4 per cent and in the next it will rise to 2.8 per cent, he said, adding capital expenditure in the next fiscal will shrink to 0.7 per cent from 1.4 per cent in the current.

Net tax revenue in the current fiscal was targeted at Rs 16.49 lakh crore but only Rs 9 lakh crore was collected in first nine months till December 2019 and "you want us to believe this will rise to Rs 15 lakh crore by March 2020," he said.

Similarly, expenditure in 2019-20 was pegged at Rs 27.86 lakh crore but only Rs 11.78 lakh crore spent during April- December and by March this is projected to rise to Rs 27 lakh crore.

"You have no money to spend... and these are masked by numbers," he said. "Numbers are not easily acceptable or believable."

Chidambaram said the government is facing shortfall in all forms of taxes - Rs 1.56 lakh crore on corporate tax, Rs 10,000 crore on personal income tax, Rs 30,000 crore on customs, Rs 52,000 crore on excise and Rs 51,000 crore on GST.

This despite "the extraordinary powers" and "all kinds of power" given to lower level tax officials, he said.

He read of list of heads under which allocation has fallen - food subsidy, agriculture, PM-Kisan, rural roads, mid-day meal scheme, ICDS, skill development, Ayushman Bharat, rural development and MGNEGA.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.