On 17 January 2012, the Supreme Court had set aside a Gujarat High Court judgement permitting Essar Oil to avail of a sales tax deferral benefit from the Gujarat government. Subsequent to the ruling, the state government asked Essar Oil to repay about Rs6,300 crore sales tax plus interest accrued
New Delhi: Essar Oil today said it has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the apex court’s decision setting aside a ruling of the Gujarat High Court that allowed the company to defer payment of sales tax to the state government, reports PTI.
In a press statement Essar said, “It has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the apex court’s decision relating to repayment of deferred sales tax.”
On 17 January 2012, the Supreme Court had set aside a Gujarat High Court judgement permitting Essar Oil to avail of a sales tax deferral benefit from the Gujarat government.
Sales tax due to be paid in instalments was about Rs6,300 crore as of December.
Subsequent to the ruling, the Gujarat government asked Essar Oil to repay about Rs6,300 crore sales tax plus interest accrued.
Essar Oil, which is 87% owned by London-listed Essar Energy Plc, has “already made provision for repaying part of the sales tax deferment liability. This liability has been assigned to a third party,” the company had stated on 31st January.
The company today said the Gujarat High Court in an earlier order had extended time to Essar Oil for commencing commercial production at the Vadinar Refinery, thus making the company eligible to avail of Gujarat state’s Capital Investment Incentive to Premier/Prestigious Unit Scheme, 1995-2000.
The study which was conducted by Delhi-based NCAER at the behest of IRDA, suggested that private sector and the government should work together in public-private partnership mode to enhance awareness about the benefits of insurance, especially in the age group of 20-30 years
New Delhi: One out of every four people do not think that life insurance is important, reveals an Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) sponsored study, which also made a case for effective marketing to increase penetration, reports PTI.
The study which was conducted by Delhi-based think-tank NCAER at the behest of insurance regulator IRDA, suggested that private sector and the government should work together in public-private partnership (PPP) mode to enhance awareness about the benefits of insurance, especially in the age group of 20-30 years.
“(There is a) low propensity for life insurance whereby one-fourth of the households did not consider life insurance as important,” the study found.
It said that people, especially in rural areas, are not able to clearly comprehend the extent of coverage being offered under a particular insurance plan which results in low penetration.
“...the insurance companies or the regulatory authority need to step up efforts to improve the awareness levels across the country,” the study noted.
It also suggested different insurance packages for rural poor and urban populace and also highlighted the importance of micro insurance.
“Public policy should address insurance awareness needs of the people...” the study said, adding that a mass media awareness campaign would help reach out to the untapped market.
“It is essential that awareness creation interventions be undertaken targeting the 20-30 year age group...” it said.
As per estimates, insurance penetration in India dropped to 5.1% in 2010-11 fiscal, from 5.2% in 2009-10.
While life insurance penetration fell to 4.4% during the year, from 4.6%, general insurance sector saw an increase in penetration from 0.6% in 2009 to 0.7% in 2010.
Justice Kanade of the Special Court also observed that fresh applications are filled for recovery without ascertaining whether prima facie case is made out or not, and that too after several years
The Special Court, hearing offences related to securities market, has asked the Custodian to pay Rs50,000 as cost to S & S Power Switchgear Ltd (SSPS) for not accepting a fair offer from the company and seeking adjournments from time to time.
The case date backs to 1991, when SSPS decided to come up with a public issue and appointed Fairgrowth Financial Service (FFS) as the lead manager. However, FFS alleged that the company failed to pay it for services rendered for the issue. FFS demanded outstanding dues of Rs1.34 lakh, including the sum of Rs1.05 lakh of which Rs90,000 was standby commission and Rs15,000 was management fee and interest. The penal interest of Rs29,086 on delayed payment was claimed based on the chartered accountant’s report, who was appointed by the Court. The court sought the intervention of the Custodian as FFS failed to make any recovery application.
Interestingly FFS, now defunct, was indicted in the 1992 securities scam.
While arguing the case the Custodian placed on record, the correspondence letters between SSPS and FFS. The content of the letters and its receipts were however denied by the company and it also stated of not being served with the copy of audit report.
The Court observed that the “Custodian has not bothered to annexe the auditor’s report or produce any document to prima facie show that the said claim was recoverable from SSPS.”
After the Court notices were served to the concerned parties, SSPS offered, without prejudice, a full and final settlement of Rs90,000 without any interest. The court further directed the Custodian to examine the offer. However the Custodian sought adjournment of several hearings and neither accepted nor denied the proposal submitted by SSPS.
Pointing out the lapses in the case, Justice VM Kanade of the Special Court passed strictures on the Custodian. “…it is the duty of the Custodian to act fairly and prosecute third parties in respect of the recovery of claim on behalf of the notified parties… the application has been filed in most casual and irresponsible manner.”
It adds, “More than 20 years have passed after appointment of this Court and yet fresh applications are filled in this frivolous manner against the third parties for recovery of the alleged claims and merely because law of limitation is not applicable to the Special Court, this Court cannot entertain such applications for recovery without ascertaining whether prima facie case is made out or not as observed …”
Dismissing the application, Justice Kanade said that, “In the present case when fair offer had been given by the SSPS of payment of Rs90,000 without going into the merits of the case, the applicant choose not to accept this offer. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view this is a fit case where applicant should be directed to pay costs which is quantified at Rs50,000 to SSPS.”