The Modi government should accept the arbitration panel’s ruling in favour of Vodafone and bury the retrospective tax controversy, synonymous with tax terrorism, for good. India needs to project an investor-friendly image to attract foreign investments in these dire times. Certainty in tax laws is a good place to start.
Support Our Journalism
India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.
Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.
Mr. Jethly, had in one of the debates had said that the government, did not want to remove the provision of retrospective tax until the legal course had run out, now that it has, there is no reason to continue with that provision.
One former FM called Jaitlee as a lawyer worked for Vodafone now see result where taxes are paid by indias poor but rich like Vodafone and Modis favourites ambanis get away, is india treating its poor well?
India is not the United States, which can contemptuously disregard the International Criminal Court, threaten to sanction its members who dare to investigate war crimes committed by American soldiers. This unanimous ruling ought to be accepted for many good reasons, including pragmatism and the desire to continue to attract foreign investment. But most of all because it is correct and just. The retrospective amendment of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to pluck out capital gains on an offshore transaction between two foreign entities merely because the underlying assets / business was located in India defeats the whole purpose of globalisation. For that matter, although the analogy is not exact, consider the tax efficient manner in which Reliance has raised money from foreign investors. This was one of UPA’s no balls. The FM should not have done it, nor should the PM have been too diffident to veto it. The family was too innocent in matters of governance to even know what the issue was.
That shows the weakness of character of MMS.