Ten News Live

Mahakaushal Express Derails, 9 Reported Injured

Ashish Kedia TEN NEWS

In an unfortunate incident that happened in the early hours of Thursday night, eight coaches of the Mahakaushal Express train has derailed near Mahoba.

The accident took place around 02:07 AM. This Jabalpur- Nizamuddin train was moving towards Delhi when the incident happened.

An accident relief train has been rushed to the spot to offer immediate assistance to effected passengers.

Cause of derailment is still not confirmed by the railway authorities. More details awaited.

#BreakingNews #IndianRailway



1. Non-Applicability of GST Law in the State of Jammu and Kashmir:

Earlier the GST Law was proposed to be applicable to J&K as well.However, in the Bill, the applicability of GST Law is extended to whole of India except the state of J&K.

2. Change in the Scope of Taxable Event i.e. Supply:

Earlier the supply of goods or services between related persons, when made in the course or furtherance of business was treated as Supply even when there is no consideration.Employer and Employee were covered in the definition of related person.Thus any supply of Goods or services by employer to his employees even if that supply is free of cost would have been covered under the scope of GST.Now the bill provides that such gifts not exceeding Rs. 50,000 by an employer to an employee shall not be treated as supply for the purpose of GST.

3. Removal of uncertainty relating to chargeability of GST on Supply of Immovable Property:

Earlier the “Goods” were defined as every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim.Further the “Services” were defined as anything other than goods.Thus there was an apprehension that Government may levy GST on supply of Immovable Property such as Land or building apart from levy of Stamp duty on such transactions.Now in the bill introduced in the parliament, the government has removed that uncertainty by providing in Schedule III that, “Sale of land and, sale of building except the sale of under construction building will nether be treated as a supply of goods not a supply of services. Thus GST can’t be levied in those supplies.

4. Non Chargeability of GST on Actionable Claims:

As “Actionable claim” were included in the definition of “Goods”, there may be chargeability of GST on supply of Actionable Claim under earlier law.In the Schedule III of newly introduced bill, Actionable Claim, other than lottery, betting and gambling will neither be treated as a supply of goods not a supply of services. Thus GST can’t be levied in that case.

5. Fixing the Upper cap of GST rate at 20% in case of CGST Law, and 40% in case of IGST Law:

Earlier the upper cap fixed was 14% and 25% respectively in both the laws.With a view to keep some flexibility to increase the rates in future, the upper cap has been fixed at 20% and 40% respectively under CGST and IGST Law.However the applicable slab rate will be same as approved by council i.e. 5%, 12%, 18% and 28%.

6. Payment of GST by recipient under Reverse Charge in case of supply of taxable goods or services or both by a unregistered supplier to a registered person.

In line with the purchase tax on purchase of goods from an unregistered dealer prevailing in many of the states, the GST Bill has introduced the same.Liability to pay GST in such cases will be on the recipient of such goods or services.

7. Reduction in Composition rates, a welcome move for MSME sector:

Earlier it was proposed to levy 1% composition rate for trader and 2.5% for manufacturer.Further composition scheme was not allowed for a supplier of services.Now in the bill, some reduction in composition rates has been made which is a welcome move for the MSME sector.1% of composition rate will be applicable in case of a manufacturer instead of earlier 2.5%.Further 0.50% of composition rate will be applicable in case of a trader instead of earlier 1%.Further the composition scheme will now be allowed to Restaurant Sector with a composition rate of 2.5%.

8. Requirement to seek permission from proper officer for composition scheme is dispensed with:

Now a registered person, whose aggregate turnover in the preceding financial year did not exceed, may OPT to pay under composition scheme.

9. Change in the provision for determining the liability to pay tax in case of Services(Time of Supply of Services):

Earlier, the time of supply of services was the earlier of date of issue of Invoice, or the last date on which the invoice should have been issued or date of receipt of payment by the supplier.Now in the bill, as introduced in the parliament, the provisions of service tax for determining liability to pay service tax has been incorporated in the GST bill.Thus the time of supply of services shall be earlier of the following dates:

a) If the invoice is issued within the period prescribed, the date of issue of invoices or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier;

b) If the invoice is not issued within the period prescribed, the date of provision of services, or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier;

c) The date on which the recipient shows the receipt of services in his books of accounts, in a case where aforesaid clause (a) or (b) does not apply.

10. Change in Actual Payment Condition for Non-reversal of Credits:

Earlier where a recipient fails to pay to the supplier of services, the amount towards the value of supply along with taxes thereon within a period of 3 months from the date of issue of invoices by the supplier, an amount equal to ITC availed were required to be paid along with interest thereon.Thus the aforesaid provision was restricted only in case of Services.Further there was no provision made in the law for re-allowing the credit reversed earlier due to application of aforesaid provisions.Now in the bill, the aforesaid provision is also extended to supply of Goods.Further the time period for payment is extended to 180 days from earlier 3 months.Further provision has also been made for re-availing the credit reversed earlier at the time of actual payment.

11. Credit of Rent-a-cab, life insurance, and health insurance allowed, if used for making an outward taxable supply of same category.

Earlier the credit of rent-a-cab, life insurance, and health insurance were fully denied except where the government notifies the services which are obligatory for an employer to provide to its employees under any law for the time being in force.The aforesaid provision of denial of credit would have multifold consequences. For example, a life insurance company, in case re-insurance of life insurance, will not be eligible to take credit of GST paid on re-insurance amount.With a view to avoid the genuine hardships, the credit of aforesaid services will be allowed if used for making an outward taxable supply of same category or as a part of taxable composite or mixed supply.


Date: 29.03.2017

Earnest Appeal to the entire Legal Fraternity to strike/abstain from Court work on 31.03.2017 to oppose the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017 proposed by the Law Commission of India to the Government

Dear Brothers, Sisters & Friends,

Through the media and newspapers, by now, you might have gone through the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017 proposed by the Law Commission of India to the Government. A bare perusal of the Bill establishes that the Law Commission has admitted to destroy the independence and autonomy of Indian Bar completely. The word “Misconduct” had never been defined by the Bar Council of India or by the Advocates Act, 1961 and misconduct was defined only in the Rules of Bar Council of India, but the Bill proposes to define misconduct in such a provocative way that it would be now very difficult and risky to accept the brief of any client for any lawyer. Negligence, not showing due diligence, misbehavior, dishonourable conduct (towards the client or towards the court or anybody) amounts to misconduct under the definition of Law Commission of India.

‘Misconduct’ as per Law Commission’s definition provided under the proposed Bill includes-an act of an advocate whose conduct is found to be in breach of or non-observance of the standard of professional conduct or etiquette required to be observed by the advocate; or forbidden act; or an unlawful behaviour; or disgraceful and dishonourable conduct; or neglect; or not working diligently and criminal breach of trust; or any of his conduct incurring disqualification under section 24A;”

In Section-24A of the proposed Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017, the proviso provided in the present Advocates Act, 1961 that the disqualification for enrolment shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has been totally done away with.

In Section-26A i.e. Under power to remove name/s of advocates from State rolls now includes an advocate who abstain from court works (due to any reason). This seeks to usurp the basic democratic right of protest against any form of injustice and the lawyers will now not be even able to raise their voice against injustice.

Law Commission has further proposed to impose a fine which may extend of rupees three lakhs and the cost of proceedings; and also award compensation of such an amount, subject to a maximum of rupees five lakhs as it may deem fit, payable to the person aggrieved by the misconduct of the advocate;

For any kind of protest or strike or abstentions (or default) the advocates would be liable to pay compensation to the litigants even though the client may not have paid a single farthing to the lawyer as fee (as per the said Bill). The non-payment of fees either in full or part by a person to his advocate shall not be a defence available for the advocate against whom claim for compensation due to alleged misconduct or participation in strike or otherwise is made by the client. The proposed provision as per the Law Commission recommended Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017 reads as follows:-

“Prohibition on the boycotts or abstention from courts’ work.– No association of advocates or any member of the association or any advocate, either individually or collectively, shall, give a call for boycott or abstinence from courts’ work or boycott or abstain from courts’ work or cause obstruction in any form in court’s functioning or in court premises.”.

The institutions of Advocates (like State Bar Council or Bar Council of India) are proposed to the made as puppets at the hands of the High Courts and Supreme Court of India.

Majority of nominees of the High Courts would be the Members of the State Bar Council out of whom a sizable number of the Members would be non-lawyers (like so-called eminent persons from the field of Commerce, Accountancy, Medical Science, Social Science etc.).

Similarly, the Bar Council of India, as per this Bill, would be no more the representative body of the Advocates of the country, rather majority of Members of the highest regulatory body of the profession and of legal education would be from the field of Commerce, Accountancy, Medical Science, Social Science etc. These members of the Bar Council of India are proposed to be nominated by the Supreme Court of India on the recommendation of a Supreme Court Judge, Chairperson of appellate authority under Chartered Accountants Act and the Central Vigilance Commissioner.

The Law Commission of India by doing so, has attempted to demolish the concept of democracy, elections and the independence and autonomy of the institution of Lawyers altogether.

In the light of the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Mahipal Singh Rana’s case, the Bar Council of India had also made suggestions. For consideration of the matter a very high level committee was constituted by Bar Council of India, which was headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivraj V. Patil, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and it includes some sitting and former Judges and more than 19 senior and young advocates of the country. The former and present Presidents of Supreme Court Bar Association are the Members of the Committee. The recommendations made by the Advisory Committee was duly considered by the Bar Council of India and after few modifications, the same was sent to the authorities, including the Government. However, the Law Commission has not even looked into any of the suggestions of Bar Council of India.

The Bar Council of India has resolved to oppose the aforementioned Bill strongly and as a token of our protest, the Council has given a call to all the lawyers of the country to abstain from the work on 31st March, 2017.

I humbly request all the Hon’ble Senior and Young Members of the Legal Fraternity to consider the seriousness of the matter and the danger and damage, which is likely to be caused to the Indian Legal Profession due to the aforesaid Bill. The Bill obviously proposes to handover the regulation of the Legal Profession in the hands of the persons having no concern with the Legal Education and in the control of Judges. No prudent advocate will accept this. As member of the Bar, you are the leaders of the nation and your opinion, your reaction carries much weight & value and the entire legal fraternity needs to support each other in this time of crisis.

The Bar Council of India vide its emergent meeting of the General Council held on 26.03.2017 at 01.00 pm at the premises of the Bar Council of India has resolved the following:-

1. The Council gives a call and request to all the Bar Councils, Bar Associations to abstain from court’s work on 31.3.2017, this will be in the token of protest of the lawyers against the proposed amendment Bill, 2017 of Law Commission of India.

2. The Council further resolves to convene a meeting of all the Members of State Bar Councils/representatives, members of ad-hoc Committee of Special Committees, the President/Secretaries of all the High Court Bar Associations and the representatives of Bar Associations of Delhi and NCR on 8th April, 2017 in the premises of Bar Council of India to decide the date of demonstration as well as the future course of action to oppose the Bill.

3. It is further resolved to request to the members of the State Bar Councils, the representatives of Bar Associations of the country to meet their respective-representatives (Member of Parliament) in the 2nd week of April, 2017 and to give a memorandum to concerned Member of Parliament with a request to reject the proposed amendment Bill, 2017.

4. The Council further resolves to prepare a detailed memorandum and to give it to the Hon’ble the President of India, Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, Hon’ble Union Minister for Finance, Hon’ble Union Minister of Law & Justice and all other Hon’ble the Union Ministers.


(Manan Kumar Mishra)
Bar Council of India

Yogi Adityanath Compares Surya Namskar With Namaz

By Ashish Kedia TENNEWS

Yogi Adityanath seems to be in full form to surprise his haters. His recent announcements and development oriented measures have become very popular with the masses of Uttar Pradesh. Still there remains a certain segment of opponents who want to portray him in poor light. This segment is waiting with baited breaths for Yogi Adityanath to make some mistakes.

However Chief Minister Adityanath is proving to be a distinctive version of his previous self. He has cleverly adopted with the changing phase of responsibilities and is doing very well in his current role as of so far.

In a latest event he astonished many when he compared Suryanamaskar with Namaz. This statement of his has come in defense of Yoga which some have been opposing as anti-Islamic. It must be noted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is a big admirer of Yoga and has made tremendous efforts to promote the exercise of International domain.

Yogi Adityanath drew parallel between Suryanamaskar and Namaz by equating the physical postures that any individual makes during both these activities.

It can be seen as an attempt of offering fig leaf to minority community. It also reaffirms that incumbent UP CM is not going to soon stop surprising his opponents.

#YogiAdityanath #Yoga #SuryaNamaskar

Big setback for Arvind Kejriwal: Delhi LG Anil Baijal orders recovery of Rs 97 cr from AAP in 30 days for “misusing” exchequer money

In a setback to the Kejriwal dispensation, Lt Governor Anil Baijal has directed that Rs 97 crore be recoverd from AAP that was allegedly "splurged" by the city government on advertisements in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines. Baijal also ordered an inquiry into the spendings on advertisements projecting Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his party and asked the chief secretary to fix responsibility. The AAP will have to reimburse the money within a month. The move comes months after a Centre-appointed three-member committee indicted the AAP government for "misusing" exchequer money on advertisements.