Latest news with #SeventhSchedule
The Print
25-07-2025
- Business
- The Print
Rs 580 cr lost to digital payment frauds in last 5 yrs, only 43% recovered—govt to Parliament
In a written response to a question by Congress MP Anto Antony and BJP MP Baijayant Panda in Lok Sabha on Monday, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said that more than 6.5 lakh digital payment frauds have been reported in the last five years. New Delhi: Indians lost Rs 580 crore to digital payment frauds in the last five years, 67 percent of which were reported in just the last two years, the government has informed Parliament. Among the states and Union Territories, Maharashtra, Haryana, Delhi and Tamil Nadu top the chart when it comes to digital payment frauds. The four states together accounted for 69 percent of total reported frauds in the last five years. In 2024-25, Tamil Nadu with 25 percent of the total number of digital payment frauds pipped Maharashtra, which was holding the top spot for the previous four years. However, the total frauds did come down by 50 percent from Rs 2,93,488 in 2023-24 to Rs 1,45,738 in 2024-25, but it still remained higher than the prior three years. Recovery of money lost in digital frauds remains low. In the last five years, just 43 percent of money was recovered across the country. In his reply, Chaudhary mentioned that the onus of curbing the digital payment frauds lies with the states as police and public order are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 'The States/UTs are primarily responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes including cyber-crime through their law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The Central Government supplements the initiatives of the States/UTs through advisories and financial assistance under various schemes for capacity building of their LEAs,' Chaudhary submitted in his written response. Also Read: More salaried than self-employed Indians earning less than Rs 25k a month face borrower stress—study Dubious records for HDFC, Kotak Mahindra According to the government data, Kotak Mahindra Bank reported the highest number (1,26,974) of digital frauds cumulatively over the last five years, while HDFC Bank reported the highest number of cases with over 35,000 in 2024-25. For 2024-25, the top five companies reporting digital frauds include HDFC Bank, Airtel Payments Bank, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank, and State Bank of India. All of them together account for 65 percent of reported cases during the year. In May, Airtel launched an AI-enabled Fraud Detection Solution with a multi-layered intelligence platform to safeguard customers from a range of scams and fraud. Chaudhary said that the government has taken steps to protect account holders from cyber frauds. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued Master Directions on Digital Payment Security Controls in February 2021 to combat web and mobile app threats. These guidelines mandate the banks to implement a common minimum standards of security controls for various payment channels like internet, mobile banking, card payment etc. RBI and banks have also been taking up awareness campaigns through short SMS, radio campaigns, publicity on prevention of 'cyber-crime', etc. The RBI has also launched an AI-based tool 'MuleHunter' for identification of money mules and advised the banks and financial institutions for its uses. To prevent frauds related to UPI transactions, the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) has implemented device binding between mobile number and the device, two-factor authentications through PIN, daily transaction limit, limits and curbs on use cases etc. It also provides AI/Machine Learning-based fraud monitoring solutions to all the banks to generate alerts and decline transactions. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: Three yrs since launch, govt-backed e-commerce network ONDC is a tortoise running with the hares
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
50% cap breached, will quota ordinance hold, guv asks AG
Hyderabad: Governor Jishnu Dev Varma Tuesday held detailed consultations with advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy at Raj Bhavan to assess the legislative competence and constitutional validity of the state's recent ordinance that removed the 50% cap on reservations for weaker sections in the upcoming panchayat elections. The governor had sought legal clarity on whether the state was within its powers to enact such an ordinance. In response, the advocate general explained that the Constitution itself grants states the authority to make such provisions. He cited the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (list II-state list, entry 5), which empowers states to ensure better self-governance in panchayats through Article 243-D(6), and for municipalities through Article 243-T(6). The AG clarified that the ordinance does not specify any reservation percentages for SCs, STs, or BCs. "All we have done is remove the 50% upper limit imposed by the previous BRS govt through section 285-A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018," he said. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The section introduced by the previous BRS govt stipulated that total reservations for SCs, STs, and BCs should not exceed 50%, in accordance with the triple test requirement laid down by the Supreme Court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo "We removed the upper cap by amending the law," the AG said. "However, the ordinance does not specify any particular quantum of reservation for any category," he added. The AG further pointed out that the Constitution does not prescribe any quantitative limit on reservations in local body elections. "With credible empirical data on social and economic backwardness, states can apportion reservations appropriately. We are only acting on that principle," he explained. The AG informed the governor that the state's recent caste survey found that BCs constitute around 58% of the population. "We have scientific, area-wise data supporting this. A notification specifying BC reservations based on backwardness across regions is under preparation," he said. The AG asserted that the state was fully empowered to bring such an ordinance and is prepared to defend it legally. "This step is part of our broader goal to achieve social justice. We welcome debate and are ready to meet any legal challenge that may arise," he is believed to have told the governor.
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Neither central nor state forces allowed in assembly'
1 2 Kolkata: The advocate general, in his submission to Calcutta High Court, on Tuesday denied BJP 's allegation of discrimination between central and state forces on the Bengal assembly precincts. AG Kishore Datta pleaded that neither central nor state forces were allowed as security to MLAs. "However, there are some policemen deployed in the House, without arms, on the directions of the high court," Datta said. He submitted that all other security personnel were made to wait in shelters. "The prayer made by the leader of opposition (Suvendu Adhikari) to allow central forces within the assembly precincts/House would result in an order of reverse discrimination," the AG said. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata Adhikari's counsel and BJP chief whip Jaydip Kar had earlier cited a notification issued by the assembly speaker on May 6, 2021, preventing central security forces accompanying BJP MLAs from entering the premises. The AG urged the court of Justice Amrita Sinha to consider whether a direction to the legislature presided over by the speaker, who enjoys certain privileges and immunity under Articles 178, 194, 208, 212 and Entry 13 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, was preferable and how far the functions of the legislature could be brought under the purview of judicial review. Senior counsel for Adhikari, Billwadal Bhattacharya, held that the point of the matter was whether constitutional provisions could be suspended by issuing an administrative letter from the speaker's office. Justice Sinha adjourned the hearing till July 21.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Broadcasters have to pay both service, luxury taxes: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that broadcasters are liable to pay both service tax and entertainment tax on the broadcasting activity for the purpose of entertainment of the subscriber as both Parliament and the state legislatures have the legislative competence to levy the two taxes are different aspects of the same activity which enable two different legislatures to impose tax under distinct taxation entries in two different Lists, the apex court said.A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh said that in the instant case, the Parliament under the Finance Act, 1994 and its amendments is not imposing a tax on entertainment. Such a tax is being imposed by the state legislatures as entertainment is a luxury within the meaning of Entry 62 - List II, it said. 'In the same way, the Finance Act along with its amendments seeks to impose a tax on the service rendered by the broadcasting agency which is imposed under Entry 97 List – I. In the same vein, under Entry 62 List – II, the state governments are not imposing any service tax on the assesses,' the top court said. It further stated that there is no overlapping in fact or in law, inasmuch as different aspects of the same activity are being taxed under two different legislations by two different legislatures. 'This is because the activity of broadcasting is a service and liable to service tax imposed by the Parliament (Entry 97 – List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution) and the activity of entertainment is a subject falling under Entry 62 - List II and therefore, the assessees herein are liable to pay entertainment tax as well. Hence, the State Legislatures as well as the Parliament, both have the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax as well as service tax respectively on the activity carried out by the assessees herein,' the judgment stated. According to it, no entertainment can be presented to the viewers unless the broadcaster transmits the signals for instantaneous presentation of any performance, film or any programme on their television. 'Thus, there are two aspects in this activity; the first is the act of transmission of signals of the content to the subscribers. The second aspect here concerns not only the content of the signals, but the effect of the decryption of the signals by the Set-Top Boxes and the viewing cards inside these boxes provided by the assessees to the subscribers, which is providing and receiving of entertainment through the television. Without the apparatus provided for by the assessees to decrypt the signals, the subscriber would not be able to watch the content that is transmitted, the content being for the purpose of entertainment,' Justice Nagarathna, writing for the bench, said in her 321-page judgment. The television entertainment provided by them through broadcasting, is a luxury within the meaning of Entry 62 - List II. The assessees who are engaged in the activity of providing entertainment are liable to pay service tax on the activity of broadcasting under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with relevant amendments and are also liable to pay entertainment tax in terms of Entry 62 - List II as being a specie of luxuries, the court added. The apex court was hearing a batch of cases from different high courts (lead case being Kerala vs Asianet Satellite Communications) in which entertainment tax was charged from broadcasters by various states. The broadcasters claimed that they were not liable to pay entertainment tax (or luxury tax ) under the respective state enactments. They submitted that since they were engaged in broadcasting of signals through television channels to subscribers, hence, were possibly liable to pay only service tax to the Central government. It set aside the Kerala High Court's 2012 judgment that had held that exemption given to cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of delivery of entertainment in both the services. The top court said that the 2012 judgment, which declared the levy and collection of luxury tax on cable television operators with connections of 7,500 or more as unconstitutional for being discriminatory was "incorrect".
Daily Express
07-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Express
PM tells health minister to review Act 723 issues urgently: Fahmi
Published on: Wednesday, May 07, 2025 Published on: Wed, May 07, 2025 By: Bernama Text Size: Filepic of more than 300 general practitioners dressed in black, who staged a peaceful protest near the Prime Minister's office in Putrajaya. PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has instructed Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad to urgently review the concerns raised by private medical practitioners (GPs) regarding the implementation of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723). Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, who is also the Madani Government spokesman, said the matter was discussed at today's Cabinet meeting, during which Anwar sought clarification from Dzulkefly. 'The issue raised involves the use of Act 723, which falls under the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living. 'Some doctors (GPs) have questioned why that act was applied instead of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586). The prime minister has therefore requested an immediate explanation,' he said at his weekly press conference here today. Yesterday, more than 300 GPs staged a peaceful gathering lasting about two hours near the Perdana Putra building here to oppose the application of Act 723 to the medical profession. Among the demands of the GP community is a review of Act 723, advocating for the medical profession to be fully regulated under Act 586, which they believe is sufficient to govern private medical practice and healthcare services. Fahmi said the Seventh Schedule under Act 586, which regulates consultation and procedural charges for GPs at private clinics, will also be reviewed, and Dzulkefly has said that a Cabinet paper has been prepared. 'We expect the matter to be brought back to the Cabinet for a decision within a week or two,' he added. Previously, the media reported that the Seventh Schedule has never been amended since it was gazetted in 2006. * Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss. * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
