Skip to main content

Debtors can´t be allowed to paralyse banking system, says Jaitley


Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Thursday said public sector banks needed the Banking Regulations Ordinance in order to be able to take decisions without fear of being subjected to investigation later.
Replying to a debate on amendments to the Banking Regulations Act, Jaitley, who also holds the defence and corporate affairs portfolios, said the decision to take defaulters through the bankruptcy process was not a political one, and that such a move was necessary to start clearing the Rs 7 lakh crore toxic assets in the banking system.
The amendments were passed by Lok Sabha and the Bill will now move to the Upper House of Parliament.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) allows creditors to file insolvency cases against defaulters, which are given 180 days for restructuring.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can offer a company an extension of 90 days but if are solution plan is not finalised by then, its assets will be liquidated.
All financial creditors will receive their shares first and then claims of operational creditors will be settled.
Jaitley said the reason why banks did not take their biggest defaulters through the insolvency process before the ordinance was issued was fear among bankers of being probed later under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A Reserve Bank of India (RBI) oversight committee was keeping an eye on the recovery process, he added.
In the last few months, few banks have filed insolvency petitions.
Mostly, companies themselves have filed petitions to restructure themselves.
The other category of petitioners are operational creditors, like service providers, flat owners and employees, who would have otherwise not have had the chance to claim their dues from defaulting companies.
Till July 10, 112 such announcements have been made, of which banks account for 17 announcements.
State Bank of India (SBI) and Punjab National Bank (PNB) are applicants in three cases each, and Bank of India (BoI), IDBI Bank and ICICI Bank account for two cases each.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction has initiated three cases.
“Adebtor cannot paralyse the banking system by not paying up debts for years.
At the same time, we need to ensure these companies are saved as running companies mean jobs,” Jaitley said.
The Business Standard, New Delhi, 04th July 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

At 18%, GST Rate to be Less Taxing for Most Goods

About 70% of all goods and some consumer durables likely to cost less

A number of goods such as cosmetics, shaving creams, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, plastics, paints and some consumer durables could become cheaper under the proposed goods and services tax (GST) regime as most items are likely to be subject to the rate of 18% rather than the higher one of 28%.

India is likely to rely on the effective tax rate currently applicable on a commodity to get a fix on the GST slab, said a government official, allowing most goods to make it to the lower bracket.

For instance, if an item comes within the 12% excise slab but the effective tax is 8% due to abatement, then the latter will be considered for GST fitment.

Going by this formulation, about 70% of all goods could fall in the 18% bracket.

The GST Council has finalised a four-tier tax structure of 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% but has left room for the highest slab to be pegged at 40%. A committee of officials will work out the fitment and the council…

Coffee-Toffee, the GST Debate Continues

Hundreds of crores of rupees in the form of taxes ride on the exact categorisation of products Is Parachute hair oil or edible oil? Is KitKat a chocolate or a biscuit? Is a Vicks tablet medicament or confectionery? For the taxpayer and the tax collector, this is much more than an exercise in semantics -hundreds of crores of rupees ride on the exact categorisation.
As the government moves closer to rolling out the goods and services tax (GST) on July 1, many such distinctions are being debated so that no ambiguity remains. Not just that, the government is revisiting old tax cases that were lost over product categorisation, according to people with knowledge of the matter, presumably with a view to making sure that revenue collections can be maximised. “In the past, several tax officers had challenged some of the product categorisations, including those in the retail segment, but lost out in court or at appellate level,“ said one of the persons. “Now we have a chance to go ahead with speci…

Deposit gush:-CA Institute Bats for Special Audit