Transparency takes a hit as Kerala excludes GST wing from RTI
Thiruvananthapuram: The state govt has excluded its GST intelligence and enforcement wing from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, effectively shielding a crucial revenue enforcement body from public scrutiny. The exemption, issued through a gazette notification under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, mirrors a step taken by the Centre, but it has been pointed out that the central agencies deal with national security and allied matters.
Besides claiming that the exemption is in the "larger public interest" to protect the confidentiality of ongoing probes and intelligence sources, the notification dated April 21 cites the central decision to exempt its Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to cover intelligence work for Central Goods and Services Tax.
"There is no national security angle here. GST enforcement is about financial compliance, not sensitive intelligence. The larger public interest lies in disclosure, not in secrecy... This only protects those wishing to avoid scrutiny," former chief information commissioner Vinson M Paul said.
The govt has cited provisions of the GST Act that allow exemptions from disclosure earlier also to restrict public access to governance data. These include denial of information on several assembly questions on alleged tax evasion by private firms, including CMRL that was accused of making monthly payments to chief minister's daughter Veena T and her firm.
In one such case, chief information commissioner V Hari Nair, criticised the GST department for refusing to reveal the GST payment details of a private company, Santamonica Study Abroad Pvt Ltd. In the Oct 2024 order, the CIC said the department wrongly classified the requested GST information as confidential third-party information under the RTI Act and clarified that there is no bar in sharing the GST payment details of the firm as public information since the details are available with a public authority.
Furthermore, the CIC asserted that Section 152 of the CGST Act doesn't impede providing information under RTI. He emphasised the need to balance the right to information and privacy, and concluded that disclosing tax information does not equate to revealing commercial secrets.
The state already has a troubled record with transparency as critical reports with serious public implications remain shielded. The Hema Committee report on the film industry, the probe into the child adoption controversy involving a CPM functionary's daughter, and the contributory pension review report—all commissioned using public funds—have either been denied or delayed in response to RTI requests and legislative questions.
The govt's handling of "Operation Palm Tree," an anti-tax evasion drive, is an example of its opacity. In response to an assembly question in March 2025, the department said data collection was still underway. However, a news release from the same department, issued earlier on May 23, 2024, announced unearthing Rs 1,170 crore in fake transactions, a tax loss of Rs 209 crore and identification of 148 fake GST registrations under the same drive. If the news release suggested a completed probe, the assembly response suggested otherwise.
Transparency advocates see this as representing a deeper problem—where the legislature and public receive conflicting narratives on the same issue, undermining accountability. "We now have a situation where a critical enforcement wing is insulated from scrutiny, and routine disclosures are treated like classified state secrets, setting a dangerous precedent," a senior official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Northeast Delhi riots: After judge's transfer, where does the ‘larger conspiracy' case stand?
Arguments on charge in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case will have to begin afresh as the judge who had been hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred. Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years. From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings. After the remaining persons finished their arguments, the trial of the case would've begun. Family members and lawyers of the accused called the delay a 'punishment'. Shortly after the riots broke out, which left 53 dead and 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind them. During its investigation, it booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. The case of the Special Cell was that the riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019. Between 2020 and 2023, police filed four supplementary chargesheets. With their final chargesheet in June 2023, they marked the completion of their probe into the case. Their case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses. In October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had directed that arguments on the charge be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Two months later, ASJ Rawat was transferred and ASJ Sameer Bajpai replaced him. On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officially told ASJ Bajpai that they had completed their investigation. Following this, the judge ordered that arguments on charge would commence from September 5. On May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following a reshuffle of 135 judges across Delhi. 'With the chargesheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues and such transfers, we don't know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,' said Umar's father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas. 'The problem is that section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent bail conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be complete. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,' said advocate Rajiv Mohan, who represented Husain in court. Along with Mohan, advocate Tara Narula also appeared for Husain. Asif Iqbal Tanha, one of the six accused out on bail, told The Indian Express, 'For the people who are in jail, the delay in trial is very problematic. But even those who are out on bail have various restrictions.' On June 2, ASJ Lalit Kumar, who replaced ASJ Bajpai, heard the case for the first time. The Delhi Police and the accused persons were directed by the judge to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments. The court also stated that arguments on charge must be 'expedited'. On June 6, ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution and the defence how long they would take to conclude the arguments. 'I will take 25-27 hours to outline the entire conspiracy… we have submitted a 1,200-page compilation. For the assistance of the honorable Court, I will keep it very concise,' Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said. The 18 accused persons in this case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).
Scroll.in
34 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
‘Core issues remain': Why Ladakh's leaders are dissatisfied with Centre's new domicile rules
After multiple rounds of talks with leaders from Ladakh, the Centre has announced a new domicile and job reservation policy for the Union territory. The anxiety over natives losing control over land, resources and employment opportunities had driven sustained protests in Ladakh over the last five years. By reserving most government jobs for local residents and elaborate restrictions on who can be a domicile of Ladakh, the Narendra Modi government has sought to address the demands from the cold desert region. However, the Ladakhi leadership has called it only a 'first step' and a 'breakthrough' in reaching a resolution. 'Our two main issues pertaining to statehood for Ladakh and Sixth Schedule status are still pending,' said Chering Dorjay, a senior Ladakhi leader and chairman of Leh Apex Body, one of the two bodies who carried out negotiations with the Union government on behalf of the people of Ladakh. 'There has been no discussion on those issues as of now.' He added: 'The core issues remain unaddressed.' The Ladakhi leadership had sought a constitutional guarantee in the form of the Sixth Schedule which guarantees protections over land and a nominal autonomy for the country's tribal areas. In Ladakh, more than 97% of the population belongs to Scheduled Tribes. More crucially, the new rules do not impose any restrictions on outsiders buying land in Ladakh, the leaders said. What the new policy entails When New Delhi decided to create a separate Union territory of Ladakh without from the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, there was euphoria in Leh. However, the implications of the decision to scrap Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution soon became clear. Like the rest of the citizens of the now non-existent state of Jammu and Kashmir, the people of Ladakh had also lost their exclusive rights to own immovable property and get government jobs in the region. In August 2021, both Kargil and Leh rejected the Union territory status for Ladakh and demanded statehood instead. By 2022, the growing anxiety over non-locals being eligible to own land and take jobs in Ladakh had crystallized into a set of four demands of the Ladakh's leadership: statehood to Ladakh; constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution; separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts and the rollout of a recruitment process and a separate Public Service Commission for Ladakh. The Centre's June 2 decision partially addresses those demands. Under the new rules, only a person who has resided in Ladakh for a period of 15 years since its formation as a union territory on October 31, 2019, shall be eligible to be a domicile of the Union territory. A person who has studied for a period of seven years – from October 31, 2019 – and written Class 10 or Class 12 examinations in an educational institution located in the Union territory of Ladakh, also qualifies to be a domicile. The domicile rule, however, is 'valid only for the purpose of appointment to the posts under the Union territory of Ladakh as defined in Ladakh Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment.' The Centre has also brought in an ordinance to amend the reservation policy. According to this, 85% of jobs and admissions in professional educational institutions in Ladakh shall be reserved for residents of the Union territory. This includes 80% of reservation for Scheduled Tribes, 4% for those living along the Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control and 1% for Scheduled Castes. This is in addition to the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. Prior to this, the cap on reservation in Jammu and Kashmir, of which Ladakh was a part, was 50 %. Leh Apex Body's Dorjay acknowledged that the central government has addressed employment-related insecurities. 'What's happened is that 95% of government jobs are now reserved for locals,' he said. But he added: 'It's a breakthrough but there's not much [more] to it.' Sajjad Kargili, the representative of Kargil Democratic Alliance, the group that represents Kargil district in the negotiations with the Centre, said that the domicile policy has left them dissatisfied. 'Our demand is that instead of 15 years, the mandatory duration of living in Ladakh should be 30 years if anyone wants to become a domicile,' he said. According to Kargili, the Ladakh leadership has already raised the matter with the Centre. 'They have assured us that they will consider this demand. It's in the minutes of the meeting,' Kargili added. The land question With the protections under Article 370 and Article 35A gone in 2019, there is no bar against buying immovable property in the region. As of now, no law stops outsiders from buying land in Ladakh – a source of anxiety for the residents. Indeed, the leadership in Ladakh is conscious that the new rules are ambiguous about this concern. 'The domicile policy is only for jobs and it only talks about that domiciles are eligible for government jobs,' said another member of the Ladakh leadership, who was part of the deliberations with the Centre and declined to be identified. For now, the member said, they are assuming that this domicile policy has no bearing on land rights as the Centre's notification clearly states that domicile is valid only for government jobs. 'If that's not the case and if it has any bearing on land rights, then we don't accept the domicile policy.' The member pointed out that they had agreed to the domicile policy only because of the jobs crisis in Ladakh. Since 2019, recruitment in government jobs has stalled in Ladakh, owing to the lack of clarity over who qualifies for domicile status. With a new policy now in place, the Ladakh leadership is now waiting for the government to finalise recruitment rules and advertise vacancies. 'It's a sort of an interim relief,' the member of the Ladakh leadership said. 'It's what the MHA officials call picking the low-hanging fruit. Now, we will wait for the government to advertise vacancies.' J&K and Ladakh: A study in contrast Even though the Ladakh leadership argued that the Centre's decisions do not address the fundamental demands of the people of Ladakh, many say the region has got a better deal than the neighbouring Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. On Twitter, Jammu-based political commentator Zafar Choudhary criticised political leaders in both Jammu and Kashmir for failing to negotiate such a deal with the Centre. Both Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh took the formal shape of Union territories on October 31, 2019. But the Centre showed a visible urgency in framing domicile rules for Jammu and Kashmir. In March 2020, just five months after formally becoming a Union territory and amidst a nationwide lockdown to fight the coronavirus, the Union home ministry issued the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order 2020. Under these rules, anyone who 'who has resided for a period of 15 years in the union territory of J&K or has studied for a period of seven years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K' qualifies to be a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir. At that time, many Kashmiri political leaders were in detention or under house arrest. Many political parties had described the order as 'humiliating'. National Conference leader and current chief minister Omar Abdullah, who had been just released from a long detention had questioned the timing of the order. 'At a time when all our efforts & attention should be focused on the #COVID outbreak the government slips in a new domicile law for J&K. Insult is heaped on injury when we see the law offers none of the protections that had been promised,' Abdullah had posted on his Twitter/X account on April 1, 2020. Unlike Ladakh, where the domicile rule applies prospectively, beginning from October 31, 2019, the domicile rules in the case of Jammu and Kashmir applied retrospectively. That means that anyone who had been living in Jammu and Kashmir for a period of 15 years until the notification of domicile rules in 2020 was eligible to be a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir. In other words, while Ladakh will get new domiciles only after 2034, in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, many non-natives, who fulfill the criteria of domicile rules, have already become part of Jammu and Kashmir's population. In April, the Jammu and Kashmir government informed the legislative Assembly that more than 83,000 individuals who were not originally permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir have been granted domicile certificates over the past two years. The revelation had added to the anxieties of the Muslim-majority Union territory where the fear of demographic change has become one of the main concerns since August, 2019. The next round Besides the domicile and reservation policy for Ladakh, the Centre has also recognised English, Hindi, Urdu, Bhoti and Purgi languages as the official languages 'to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the Union territory' of Ladakh. It has also reserved one-third of the total seats in the two Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils of Leh and Kargil for women. Even though New Delhi might view these as significant steps, Ladakh's leadership says these were not part of their demands. 'There was nothing about language or reservation of women in our demands,' Dorjay added. 'Our demands are concerned with the overall protection and security of the people of Ladakh.' With the next meeting between the centre's High-Powered Committee and the Ladakh leadership likely towards the end of this month, the questions like statehood and Sixth Schedule status will rise again. 'We are not going back on these two demands,' Dorjay added.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ID please? MeitY verifies identity verification startups
The Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) has stepped up scrutiny of startups such as Surepass , Digitap, Zoop and Signzy for possible unauthorised access to Aadhaar, permanent account number (PAN) and goods and services tax (GST) databases, three people in the know told ET. The government is checking if these firms, which offer identity verification services, are using authorised service providers or bypassing protocols. MeitY has restricted access to some of these companies' websites through certain telecom networks. 'Representatives of some of these firms are trying to meet government officials over the next few days to understand the concerns and what they can do to address the issue,' said one of the people cited. The government allows regulated entities like banks to use Aadhaar under licence to authenticate their own customers. Authorities are trying to find out what routes are being used by these startups to offer such verification services. These identity verification platforms work with financial services firms, consumer-facing startups and other entities that need to authenticate businesses or consumers they work with. Live Events Typically, they use these services to check for fraud and to underwrite these clients. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories ETtech 'We understand that access to the Zoop website is currently restricted on certain networks,' Zoop founder Ritesh Kothari told ET. 'This appears to be part of a regular regulatory clarification process initiated by MeitY involving multiple companies offering ID verification solutions.' Kothari said Zoop has reached out to the relevant department to discuss the matter to understand the government's concerns. 'At this stage, we are not aware of the scope of or reason behind this action,' he said. 'Given this, we are unable to speculate on any causes for this takedown.' Meity, Signzy, Surepass and Digitap didn't respond to queries. 'The government is becoming extremely careful about who is accessing citizen and business databases and how they are doing it. This move is part of that larger endeavour,' said one of the people cited. ET reported on October 24 that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) has been cracking down on all forms of unauthorised access to the Unified Payments Interface ( UPI ) database by various startups that were using this to enrich customer data. NPCI sent a letter in October last year asking all banks and fintechs to refrain from any unauthorised usage of the UPI database beyond payments, balance enquiries and settlement confirmations. The second person quoted above said that some of the identity verification startups usually obtain customer application forms from clients and scrape multiple databases to verify them. This data is typically available online, some through open website links and application programming interfaces (APIs) or even through dark web databases, he said. The service is used to predict fraud, verify customers and authenticate users. 'While legal and authorised access to any database is not a problem, the authorities are concerned about any unauthorised access,' he added. Experts said startups, some funded and some bootstrapped, have proliferated across the ecosystem and are scraping various government databases to offer these services. This could be unauthorised in many cases, they said. Companies such as Idfy, DigiO, Signzy and Datasutram are the most popular identity verification platforms, offering services such as customer verification and fraud detection. Only certain platforms have faced penal action from the authorities, ET has learnt. Signzy says it offers PAN, Aadhaar, driving licence and GST authentication. Digitap offers backend verification of government documents and Surepass provides Aadhaar verification APIs. The government is checking what licences are being used by these firms to offer these services. While Signzy, founded in 2015, is backed by major venture funds such as Gaja Capital, Stellaris Venture Partners and Kalaari Capital, data from Tracxn shows that Pune-based Zoop was founded in 2016 and has only raised funding from a bunch of angel investors. Digitap is an unfunded startup based in Bengaluru and Surepass is a 2019-founded startup based in New Delhi and is yet to raise funds. The third person cited above said that these trends indicate that India needs a stringent data security law urgently. 'Many technology-first platforms have accessed these databases through some means,' he said. 'They are also hoarding data and sometimes using that to offer certain services. The DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) Act is time-critical in this matter.'
