The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the government to submit to it the names of all foreign bank account holders by Wednesday, saying it need not provide a “protective umbrella” to such persons.
The government's first list of black money account holders has named Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhya (L), Radha Timblo (C) and Pradip Burman. (PTI and ANI photos)
Sternly rejecting the Centre’s argument that revealing the identity of legal account holders would amount to breach of privacy, a special bench headed by Chief Justice of India HL Dattu said, “Don’t give us your list... but the names given to you by France and Germany. If it breaches confidentiality, let it be.”
The court also turned down the government’s request that it modify its order seeking the names of all such account holders. The Centre had contended that the names should be revealed only after investigations proved the accounts indeed held black money and led to prosecution against tax evaders.
“Why are you taking the trouble to investigate? We have taken the responsibility to bring back the (black) money and we will decide the future course (of action),” the CJI said when attorney general Mukul Rohatgi argued that a modification was imperative as the court order was acting as a hindrance in signing future tax treaties.
Sternly rejecting the Centre’s argument that revealing the identity of legal account holders would amount to breach of privacy, a special bench headed by Chief Justice of India HL Dattu said, “Don’t give us your list... but the names given to you by France and Germany. If it breaches confidentiality, let it be.”The court also turned down the government’s request that it modify its order seeking the names of all such account holders. The Centre had contended that the names should be revealed only after investigations proved the accounts indeed held black money and led to prosecution against tax evaders.“Why are you taking the trouble to investigate? We have taken the responsibility to bring back the (black) money and we will decide the future course (of action),” the CJI said when attorney general Mukul Rohatgi argued that a modification was imperative as the court order was acting as a hindrance in signing future tax treaties.
No comments:
Post a Comment