NEW DELHI: States will keenly watch the tussle between Punjab and Centre in Supreme Courtroom on the core of which is a bigger query – whether or not a state laws rising the charges charged for the method of foodgrains procurement for central PDS schemes can be binding on Union authorities.
Punjab had elevated the levy to six% of MSP of the full foodgrains procured from the state however Centre agreed to reimburse solely 2% levy, uniformly relevant to all states, in the direction of procurement course of value.
This state levy, reimbursed by Centre to states, is over and above the price of foodgrains it pays to states. These foodgrains are distributed free or at subsidised costs to weaker and weak sections of society underneath the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Antyodaya and Focused Public Distribution System.
Elevating a Centre-state dispute underneath Article 131 of the Structure on the Centre’s refusal to reimburse 6% levy mandated underneath state legal guidelines, Punjab has taken a stand that “the state holds unique energy to find out the statutory fees to be levied on procurement of foodgrains on Centre’s behalf”.
Centre refuted the assertion and mentioned, “There isn’t a authorized proper underneath any parliamentary legislation which requires Centre to contemplate, or act upon such dedication of levy by a state… As per the MoU entered by the states and Centre, Union govt is entitled to find out the charges regarding procurement of foodgrains for distribution underneath central schemes.”
Punjab govt mentioned it was utilising the 2 levies of three% every – market charge and rural improvement charge – solely for the aim of rural infrastructure corresponding to enhancing strategy roads, clear consuming water and upkeep of storage amenities, and for promotion of agricultural produce and post-harvest dealing with.
Centre mentioned the uniform 2% levy reimbursed to states over and above the price of the foodgrains was meant for use for creating amenities at procurement centres to learn poor and marginal farmers, and this levy shouldn’t be “used as a device to generate funds for different actions or enrichment of state income”.
Centre accused Punjab of wrongly diverting funds, created from the reimbursed levy, for “institution of govt academic institutes, restore of roads, building of panchayat ghars and dharamshalas, and waiving farmers’ debt”.
Punjab had elevated the levy to six% of MSP of the full foodgrains procured from the state however Centre agreed to reimburse solely 2% levy, uniformly relevant to all states, in the direction of procurement course of value.
This state levy, reimbursed by Centre to states, is over and above the price of foodgrains it pays to states. These foodgrains are distributed free or at subsidised costs to weaker and weak sections of society underneath the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Antyodaya and Focused Public Distribution System.
Elevating a Centre-state dispute underneath Article 131 of the Structure on the Centre’s refusal to reimburse 6% levy mandated underneath state legal guidelines, Punjab has taken a stand that “the state holds unique energy to find out the statutory fees to be levied on procurement of foodgrains on Centre’s behalf”.
Centre refuted the assertion and mentioned, “There isn’t a authorized proper underneath any parliamentary legislation which requires Centre to contemplate, or act upon such dedication of levy by a state… As per the MoU entered by the states and Centre, Union govt is entitled to find out the charges regarding procurement of foodgrains for distribution underneath central schemes.”
Punjab govt mentioned it was utilising the 2 levies of three% every – market charge and rural improvement charge – solely for the aim of rural infrastructure corresponding to enhancing strategy roads, clear consuming water and upkeep of storage amenities, and for promotion of agricultural produce and post-harvest dealing with.
Centre mentioned the uniform 2% levy reimbursed to states over and above the price of the foodgrains was meant for use for creating amenities at procurement centres to learn poor and marginal farmers, and this levy shouldn’t be “used as a device to generate funds for different actions or enrichment of state income”.
Centre accused Punjab of wrongly diverting funds, created from the reimbursed levy, for “institution of govt academic institutes, restore of roads, building of panchayat ghars and dharamshalas, and waiving farmers’ debt”.
