New Delhi: The ''empowered committee of state
finance ministers'' on value-added tax (VAT) would meet
here on April 16 to discuss and review the "implementation
issues" surrounding the introduction of state-level
VAT from April 1.
This
is for the first time that state finance ministers would
come together to review the situation after the introduction
of VAT in 20 States. VAT commissioners of various states
would meet on April 15 to discuss various operational
issues on VAT implementation.
"There
are implementation issues that need further discussion.
It is for this reason that state finance ministers would
meet on April 16. We had originally planned for a meeting
in May," Ramesh Chandra, member-secretary of the
empowered committee, said.
He
was addressing a national conference on `State VAT for
a common Indian market - Issues and challenges'' organised
jointly by ASSOCHAAM and PHDCCI.
Chandra
later told newspersons that the finance ministers of those
states that had not implemented VAT would also participate
in the VAT panel meeting. Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal
and the five BJP-ruled states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are yet to implement
VAT.
While
pointing out that any new system would have "teething
problems", Chandra said that it was the responsibility
of every stakeholder to make a success of VAT. "I
hope we would be able to sort out all issues within a
month," he said.
He
also criticised the section of society that opposed the
implementation of VAT. "We have people changing sides
at the drop of a hat to ensure that VAT is not implemented.
There has been enormous political lobbying and money lobbying
to see to it that VAT was not implemented from April 1.
We have still gone ahead with VAT implementation,"
Chandra said.
On
the issue of VAT on supplies of canteen stores department,
Chandra held that it was up to the finance and defence
ministries to come up with alternative form of providing
concessions to these canteens.
Traders
present at the conference complained that there were a
number of products that attracted different rates in different
states.
They
apprehended that the absence of uniformity in rates could
lead to trade diversion, especially in some of the northern
states.
|