|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 26 September 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Politics |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Speaker urged to take action against violators of constitutional oaths by our special correspondent The Speaker, W. J. M. Lokubandara, should take suitable action against the UNP and SLMC-Hakeem group Parliamentarians who voted against Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Bill last week, according to legal experts who spoke to the 'Sunday Observer'. The Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Bill was passed at the House with the majority of 50 votes. The Jathika Hela Urumaya voted with the Government and the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi parliamentarians were not present at the time of voting. A legal expert said that the Bill that was passed last week repealed the Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 2003. He said the Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act that was enacted by the United national Front government paved way for defrauding public revenue. The Supreme Court in its Determination made on August 23, 2004 on the "Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Bill" to repeal the Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 2003, amended by Act No. 31 of 2003, inter-alia, has stated that unconstitutional tax amnesty defrauded public revenue causing extensive loss to the state. A five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court made on the reference made by the President in terms of Article 129 of the Constitution said: "It is our opinion, based upon the preceding analysis that, the provisions contained in the Inland Revenue (Special provisions) Act, No.10 of 2003, as amended, are inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution which guarantees to every person equal protection of the law; in that it grants; immunities and indemnities to persons who have contravened the laws that have been referred to and thereby defrauded public revenue causing extensive loss to the State." The indirect and direct taxes collectable by the Government as at 31.12.2002 had amounted to Rs.68.7 billion. Customs Duties defaulted to be collected was reckoned to have been Rs. 120 billion. Together with fines imposed by the Controller of Exchange and Excise Commission, the total dues or public revenue payable to the government or recoverable by the Government as at 31.12.2002 was over Rs. 200 billion. These were disclosed public revenues in the Books of Accounts of the Government. The expert said the former Minister K. N. Choksy told the public that the above public revenue collectable as recorded in Books of Accounts of the Government could not be collected. However, the relevant authorities did not confirm that such colossal sums of public revenue of Rs.200 billion could not be collected. Minister Choksy as having unable to perform his duties, then should have resigned. In fat, under the infamous tax Amnesty Law considerable payments already made to State authorities have already been refunded by them. He added that today there was a shortage of funds in the treasury because such a large amount of public revenue of Rs.200 billion due to the government had been written-off. Even if 10 per cent of the money was collected immediately, relief could be given to cushion the rising cost of living due to increases of oil prices, to help poor masses of the country, grant fertiliser subsidies to farmers and grant relief to those affected by severe draught and floods. Another legal expert pointed out that the Determination of the Supreme Court was read out by the Speaker at the House. Therefore, it was the Constitutional duty of Parliament to repeal the infamous Income Tax Amnesty Law of the UNF government and all parliamentarians were bounden by their Oaths and Affirmation to uphold and defend the Constitution and to enact laws in conformity with the Constitution. Anyone who opposed the repeal of this Act was not only violated the Constitution and acted disrespecting the Supreme Court determination, but also was acting in criminalise society degrading social and moral values, and colluding in the defrauding of public revenue causing loss to the State, that is the poor people of this country. He regretted that even during the debate on the repealing of the law, as former Minister responsible for Finance,K.N. Choksy and former Minister G. L. Peiris were not present at the House. Instead of supporting the repeal act, the UNP parliamentarians and the SLMC-Hakeem Group opposed the Bill which brought justice to the people. They should have voted with the government even for the sake of those nearly 34,945 Declarations that were benefited, as the new Inland Revenue (Regulation of Amnesty) Bill provides for the verification of declarations to grant amnesty. "Therefore, the legal expert said, 'Speaker Lokubandara should take necessary action against those UNP and SLMC-Hakeem Group Parliamentarians who violated their constitutional oaths and affirmations'. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
