Current Affairs Analysis – 15.February.2020

Home
Leave a Comment on Current Affairs Analysis – 15.February.2020

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Bill, 2020

Context :

Recently, the Union Cabinet has approved an amendment to the ‘Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Bill, 2020’ in order to widen its scope to cover litigation pending in various Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs).

  • The amendment also includes certain search and seizure cases where the recovery is up to ₹5 crore.
  • Therefore, the Bill in current form allows taxpayers to settle cases pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITATs), Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), High Courts and the Supreme Court.
  • The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Bill, 2020 is similar to the ‘Sabka Vishwas Scheme’, which was brought in to reduce litigation in indirect taxes in the year 2019. It resulted in settling over 1,89,000 cases.
    • Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, the government expected to raise around ₹39,500 crore. However, after the closure of the amnesty window in January 2020 application in relation to taxes worth ₹90,000 crore were received. This shows the success of the scheme.

Key Points :

  • Objective: The Bill provides a mechanism for resolution of pending tax disputes related to direct taxes (Income Tax and Corporate Tax) in simple and speedy manner.
  • Reduce Litigation: According to the Finance Ministry, at present there are 4.83 lakh pending direct tax cases worth Rs.9 lakh crore in the courts. Through this scheme, the government wants to recover this money in a swift and simple way.
  • Addressing Revenue Shortfall: The government is witnessing a big shortfall in revenues, especially tax revenues, hence, increasing revenues in one of the priorities of the government.
    • Direct Tax collections have been lower than their budget targets due to the overall economic slowdown and a cut in the corporate tax rate in September, 2019.
  • Mechanism: In case of payment of tax, a taxpayer would be required to pay only the amount of the disputed taxes and will get complete waiver of interest, penalty and prosecution provided he/she pays by March 31, 2020.
    • But, if the tax arrears relate to disputed interest or penalty only, then 25% of disputed penalty or interest will have to be paid.
    • Those who avail this scheme after March 31, 2020 will have to pay some additional amount.
      • However, the scheme will remain open till June 30, 2020.
  • Immunity to Appellant: Once a dispute is resolved, the designated authority cannot levy interest or penalty in relation to that dispute.
    • Further, no appellate forum can make a decision in relation to the matter of dispute once it is resolved.
  • Revival of Disputes: However, if an appellant provides false information or violates the Income Tax Act, 1961, then case of dispute can be revived.

SyRI- an identification mechanism

Context :

In a first anywhere in the world, a court in the Netherlands recently stopped SyRI- a digital identification scheme for reasons of exclusion.

Implications worldwide :

This has a context for similar artificial intelligence systems worldwide, especially at a time when identity, citizenship and privacy are pertinent questions in India.

Firstly, what was the scheme SyRI all about :

SyRI (System Risk Indicator) was developed by Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs developed in 2014 to weed out those who are most likely to commit fraud and receive government benefits.

It allowed government agencies to share 17 categories of data about welfare recipients such as taxes, land registries, employment records, and vehicle registrations with a private company.

  1. The company, called “The Intelligence Agency”, used an algorithm to analyse data for four cities and calculate risk scores. The selective rollout was conducted in low-income and immigrant neighborhoods, which have a higher number of beneficiaries.
  2. Elevated risk scores were sent to relevant government arms, which stores these on government databases for a maximum of two years. The government, in that time period, could open an investigation on the targeted person.

Why the Court ruled against it :

A Dutch district court ruled against this scheme because of data privacy and human rights concerns.

The court said using new technology to control fraud was acceptable, it held SyRI was too invasive and violative of the privacy guarantees given by European Human Rights Law as well as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Legal criticism had mounted on this case of algorithmic governance, alleging that the algorithm would begin associating poverty and immigrant statuses with fraud risk.

The court found that opaque algorithmic decision-making puts citizens at a disadvantage to challenge the resulting risk scores.

Government’s defence:

The Dutch government defended the programme in court, saying it prevented abuse and acted as only a starting point for further investigation instead of a final determination. The government also refused to disclose all information about how the system makes its decisions, stating that it would allow gaming of the system.

How relevant is this for India?

Similar to the Supreme Court’s Aadhaar judgment setting limits on the ID’s usage, the Hague Court attempted to balance social interest with personal privacy.

However, the Aadhaar judgment was not regarding algorithmic decision-making; it was about data collection.

The ruling is an example of how a data protection regulation can be used against government surveillance. The court ruled that SyRI was violative of principles of transparency and data minimisation laid out in their General Data Protection Regulation.

Indian Pangolin

Context :

The Madhya Pradesh forest department, for the first time, has radio-tagged an Indian Pangolin.

  • Radio-tagging involves attaching a transmitter to an animal to monitor its movements. Several wild animals — tigers, leopards and migratory birds — have been tagged over decades.
  • Indian Pangolin has been radio-tagged in order to know its ecology and develop an effective conservation plan for it.
  • This measure comes as the world gets ready to observe the ninth ‘World Pangolin Day’ on 15th February, 2020.
    • World Pangolin Day, celebrated on the third Saturday in February every year, is an international attempt to raise awareness of pangolins and bring together stakeholders to help protect these species from extinction.
  • The radio-tagging is part of a joint project by the forest department and non-profit organisation, the Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT).

Pangolins in India :

  • Out of the eight species of pangolin, the Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) and the Chinese Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) are found in India.
  • Indian Pangolin is a large anteater covered by 11-13 rows of scales on the back. A terminal scale is also present on the lower side of the tail of the Indian Pangolin, which is absent in the Chinese Pangolin.
  • Habitat
    • Indian Pangolin is widely distributed in India, except the arid region, high Himalayas and the North-East. The species is also found in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
    • Chinese Pangolin is found in the Himalayan foothills in Eastern Nepal, Bhutan, Northern India, North-East Bangladesh and through Southern China.
  • Threats to Pangolins in India: Hunting and poaching for local consumptive use (e.g. as a protein source and traditional medicine) and international trade for its meat and scales in East and South East Asian countries, particularly China and Vietnam.
  • Protection Status
    • IUCN Red List
      • Indian Pangolin: Endangered
      • Chinese Pangolin: Critically Endangered
    • Both these species are listed under Schedule I, Part I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Source: the hindu

New structure for Military Affairs

In news :

  • The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), procurement cases will be put up as prioritised by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).
  • Formal structure comprising civil and military officials for the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) headed by the CDS (At present, we have an interim structure, they have no financial power)
  • The proposed DMA will have a Secretary, Transformation and Coordination, which will be the Chief of Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), Additional Secretary and five Joint Secretaries.
  • Additional Secretary will be a three-star officer while the Joint Secretaries include three officers, one from each service of the rank of Major General or equivalent ,Major Gen.

Department of Military Affairs:

  • The DMA will be the fifth department in the Ministry after the Department of Defence, the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Defence Research and Development and the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare.
  •  The DMA’s mandate includes promoting jointness in procurement, training and staffing for the Services; facilitating restructuring of the military commands for optimal utilisation of resources by bringing about a jointness in operations, including through the establishment of joint/theatre commands and promoting use of indigenous equipment 

The DMA would deal with 

  • The armed forces; 
  • The integrated headquarters of the Ministry, comprising the Army, Naval and Air and defence staff headquarters; 
  • The Territorial Army; and 
  • Works relating to the three services and procurement exclusive to them, except capital acquisitions

Defence Acquisition Council

  • Highest decision-making body in the Defence Ministry
  • Decides on new policies and capital acquisitions for the three services (Army, Navy and Air Force) and the Indian Coast Guard. 
  • Minister of Defence is the Chairman of the Council.
  • Formed, after the Group of Ministers recommendations on ‘Reforming the National Security System’, in 2001, post Kargil War (1999).

Judgement on Netherland’s Digital Identification Scheme

Context :

In a first anywhere in the world, a court in the Netherlands has ruled against a digital identification mechanism called SyRI (System Risk Indicator) due to data privacy and human rights concerns.

  • The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs developed SyRI in 2014 to weed out those who are most likely to commit fraud and receive government benefits.

Key Points :

  • Working of SyRI:
    • It is based on the algorithm that analyses data ( such as taxes, land registries, employment records,etc.) provided by the government and calculates risk scores.
    • The calculated risk scores are sent to relevant government arms, which stores these on government databases for a maximum of two years.
    • The government, in that time period, could open an investigation on the targeted person.
  • Court’ Ruling :
    • The Court found using new technology to control fraud as acceptable, but it held SyRI was invasive and violative of the privacy guarantees given by European Human Rights Law as well as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.
    • It called it a case of ‘Algorithmic Governance’. As the algorithm would link socio-economic parameters like poverty and immigrant statuses with fraud risk.
    • Such opaque algorithmic decision-making may put citizens at a disadvantage to challenge the resulting risk scores, consequently threatening democratic features of the country.
    • It also ruled that SyRI was violative of principles of transparency and data minimisation.
  • Dutch Government’s Stand:
    • The government claimed that the new technology prevented abuse and acted as only a starting point for further investigation instead of a final determination.
    • The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs has released a statement stating it will study the ruling, not declaring a complete removal of their system.

Leave a Reply