Varun Gandhi ready to join Cong? Rahul to take a call

New Delhi, May 25: Realtors' apex body CREDAI has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seeking immediate relief measures to tide over the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The association, which has around 15,000 developer members, has sought one-time debt restructuring, lower interest rate on home loans and tax sops to boost liquidity and demand in the sector.

In an open letter to the prime minister, the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India (CREDAI) said, "In this distressful situation arising out of the COVID-19 calamity, we in the real estate sector seek immediate relief for our survival."

Stating that the sector contributes substantially to the country's GDP and has backward and forward linkages with almost 250 industries, CREDAI said, "Our survival, therefore, is not just desirable, it is rather crucial for the economy."

Liquidity crunch, stagnant demand and cartelization of raw materials are major impediments for the industry to kickstart, it added.

CREDAI made seven recommendations to revive the sector and sought immediate intervention from the prime minister.

Pointing out that the situation is "much worse" than global financial crisis in 2008, CREDAI said "a one-time restructuring scheme as was permitted by RBI in 2008 may be quickly instituted by all lending institutions."

Since real estate was already reeling under a cyclical downturn before COVID-19, debt restructuring needs to be allowed for all accounts which were standard as on December 31, 2019, it added.

CREDAI demanded that all banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and housing finance companies (HFCs) should be directed to provide additional credit equal to 20 per cent of the existing real estate project related advances with no additional security and without the classification of project as NPA.

The penal interest charged by banks and financial institutions should be suspended for a period of one year or until such time as it takes for the pandemic to abate.

To revive housing demand, CREDAI suggested that "government should reduce the maximum rate of interest on new home loans to 5 per cent by subsidizing the interest component of EMIs for next five years."

The limit of principal deduction on housing loan under Section 80C should be increased to 2.5 lakh.

Interest deduction under Section 24 on housing loan for homebuyers may be increased to Rs 10 lakh, it said.

There should be no capital gains for residential properties held for a period longer than one year.

CREDAI also demanded that the subvention scheme be allowed again by National Housing Bank (NHB) and the Reserve Bank.

Under the scheme, builders used to pay EMIs on behalf of homebuyers during construction of projects.

"The economic uncertainty and job insecurity at the moment would not allow purchase of residential property at this time. A scheme whereby a homebuyer would need to pay only margin money with no EMI for 24 months will address this insecurity," the letter said.

The association pointed out that prices of cement and steel have been increased during the lockdown period, and asked for crackdown on cartelisation by manufacturers.

On the GST front, CREDAI said that the current regime of GST provides a rate of 1 per cent  for affordable housing.

"The limit of Rs 45 lakh serves as a criterion of affordability for the purpose of GST. On all other housing, GST is applied at the rate of 5 per cent without input tax credit. It has been felt that the criterion of Rs 45 lakh is too low an index of affordability anywhere across the country, and especially so in the metros," the letter said.

It will serve as an inducement to buyers in the metros if the benefit of GST at the rate of 1 per cent is extended to units costing up to Rs 75 lakh, the association said.

CREDAI pointed out that the flat rate of 5 per cent GST for under construction residential housing is causing cost build up and is acting as a deterrent for sale of under construction projects since there is no GST on completed units.

It suggested that GST rate of 1 per cent and 5 per cent, without input tax credit, should continue.

"However, an option of GST @12 per cent for normal housing/ 8 per cent for affordable housing (with 1/3rd deduction for land i.e. effective GST rate of 8 per cent for normal housing and effective GST rate of 5 per cent for affordable housing) with input tax credit (ITC) benefits in line with the scheme applicable for the works contracts for government may be revived and made applicable to the real estate," the letter said.

Lastly, CREDAI demanded that a Rs 25,000 crore stress fund for completing stalled housing projects should be deployed at the earliest.

"We shall be grateful for your much-needed intervention for the above mentioned measures required to revive the real estate sector," CREDAI said in the letter to the PM.

New Delhi, Mar 7: No country in the world says everybody is welcome, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on Saturday, hitting out at those criticising India over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Jaishankar criticised the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its criticism on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, saying its director had been wrong previously too and one should look at the UN body's past record on handling the Kashmir issue.

"We have tried to reduce the number of stateless people through this legislation. That should be appreciated," he said when asked about the CAA at the ET Global Business Summit. "We have done it in a way that we do not create a bigger problem for ourselves."

"Everybody, when they look at citizenship, have a context and has a criterion. Show me a country in the world which says everybody in the world is welcome. Nobody says that," the minister said.

The external affairs minister said moving out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was in the interest of India's business.

Asked about the UNHRC director not agreeing with India on the Kashmir issue, Jaishankar said: "UNHRC director has been wrong before.

"UNHRC skirts around cross-border terrorism as if it has nothing to do with country next door. Please understand where they are coming from; look at UNHRC's record how they handled Kashmir issue in past," he added.

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.