NEW DELHI: States will keenly watch the tussle between Punjab and Centre in Supreme Court docket 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 could be binding on Union authorities.
Punjab had elevated the levy to six% of MSP of the overall foodgrains procured from the state however Centre agreed to reimburse solely 2% levy, uniformly relevant to all states, in direction of procurement course of price.
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 susceptible 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 expenses to be levied on procurement of foodgrains on Centre’s behalf”.
Centre refuted the assertion and stated, “There is no such thing as a authorized proper underneath any parliamentary legislation which requires Centre to contemplate, or act upon such willpower 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 stated it was utilising the 2 levies of three% every – market price and rural improvement price – solely for the aim of rural infrastructure similar to bettering strategy roads, clear consuming water and upkeep of storage services, and for promotion of agricultural produce and post-harvest dealing with.
Centre stated the uniform 2% levy reimbursed to states over and above the price of the foodgrains was meant for use for creating services at procurement centres to learn poor and marginal farmers, and this levy shouldn’t be “used as a instrument 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 overall foodgrains procured from the state however Centre agreed to reimburse solely 2% levy, uniformly relevant to all states, in direction of procurement course of price.
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 susceptible 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 expenses to be levied on procurement of foodgrains on Centre’s behalf”.
Centre refuted the assertion and stated, “There is no such thing as a authorized proper underneath any parliamentary legislation which requires Centre to contemplate, or act upon such willpower 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 stated it was utilising the 2 levies of three% every – market price and rural improvement price – solely for the aim of rural infrastructure similar to bettering strategy roads, clear consuming water and upkeep of storage services, and for promotion of agricultural produce and post-harvest dealing with.
Centre stated the uniform 2% levy reimbursed to states over and above the price of the foodgrains was meant for use for creating services at procurement centres to learn poor and marginal farmers, and this levy shouldn’t be “used as a instrument 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”.
