Telangana's seed law may encounter Centre's roadblock
Haryana's seed law, which was passed in the assembly this year, aims to impose strict penalties on companies supplying spurious or low-quality seeds, but the Centre indicated that it would soon introduce amendments to the
Central Seed Act
of 1966.
Haryana's law includes provisions for imprisonment of up to two years and fines of up to 3 lakh for such companies.
In response to numerous complaints from farmers' associations regarding issues with spurious seeds, the Haryana govt had decided to bring in its own regulations. Under the 1966 Seed Act, however, the penalties for companies or individuals involved in producing or selling counterfeit, adulterated, or substandard seeds were minimal, with a maximum fine of only 500 for the first offence.
A top Telangana govt official noted, "Under the Central (Seed) Act, companies bear no liability or punishment, and despite supplying fake seeds, states were prohibited from enacting their own laws." The Centre's argument was that while agriculture was a state subject, the Seed Act covers multiple states and involves all states; therefore, only the Centre could amend or create laws related to seeds.
Sources privy to the developments stated, "We must explore alternative solutions to address these problems and will consider other means." Incidentally, Telangana had encountered a similar situation in 2017 when it attempted to formulate its own Seed Act, but the Centre urged the state to wait for forthcoming amendments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Wealth edition 21-Jul-2025 to 27-july-2025
1. Plain in language, but legally? Live Events 2. Tedious TDS compliance 3. Faceless assessments issues 4. Belated returns & refund panic 5. Delay in appeals continues 6. Digital enforcement sans rights 7. Family ownership The new Income Tax Bill , 2025 is touted as a long-overdue rewrite of the Income Tax Act , 1961. Tabled in Parliament on 13 February, it is leaner—nearly half the word count of the old Act—visually cleaner, and organised into schedules and tables for easy navigation. The Select Committee examining the Bill is likely to table its report on 21 July with 285 recommendations, as the monsoon session of Parliament brevity is welcome, but the real question is: has the law become easier to comply with, or just easier to read? For most salaried individuals, pensioners, HUFs, and small businesses—the bulk of India's taxpayers— clean language alone isn't enough. They seek a system that's truly easier: fewer hurdles, faster resolutions, and fairer treatment. Let's explore certain key areas that reveal the difference between surface-level simplification and real compliance Bill does try to replace certain complicated legal jargons with easier-to-understand English counterparts. It replaces the confusing dual year concepts of 'assessment year' and 'previous year' with a uniform 'tax year'. Similarly, 'notwithstanding anything' makes way for the simpler phrase 'irrespective of'. However, the Bill does little to demystify these provisions for average brevity is mainly due to smart formatting. Long subsections, provisos and explanations have been recast into separate schedules and tables. While it improves readability, core legal complexities remain: e.g., bulky clauses of eligible saving and investment avenues in Section 80C of the existing Act are now part of Schedule XV, with a shorter main provision under Section 123 in the Bill—thus streamlining form, not Bill retains the substantive core of the existing Act. The five heads of income remain unchanged, as does the computational architecture. Key reliefs and thresholds, including the `12-lakh exemption in the new tax regime, are still there. This ensures continuity but also retains historical complexities. Areas like capital gains, holding periods, asset classification, overlapping exemptions under sections 54, 54EC, 54F, and fair market value (FMV) rules are untouched and navigating them demands new tabular layout for tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions—listing rates, thresholds, and deductee types—reduces confusion, but procedural pain points persist. Refunds of excess TDS mistakenly deducted and deposited by deductors still require manual follow-up, suffer delays, and lack transparency. The Bill misses an opportunity to mandate automatic system-driven refunds for the current Act, Section 144B outlines faceless assessment in legislative the new Bill relegates this whole framework to executive rule-making under Section 273. By making it a government-notified scheme instead of embedding it in the law, the Bill lowers parliamentary oversight. It may offer administrative flexibility but dilutes legislative sanctity and taxpayer protection. Faceless reassessments, appeals and penalty proceedings are similarly diluted, raising worries on transparency and legal Section 263 of the Bill, corresponding to Section 139 of the Act, mandates return filing by specified taxpayers on or before due date, it also adds a new category—any person seeking to claim a refund must now file their return by the due date. This requirement has no parallel in Section 139 of the current 239 of the current law allows refund claims through any return filed as per Section 139, including belated or revised returns. In the new Bill, Section 263(1)(a)(ix) disqualifies returns filed after the due date from claiming refunds, thus barring belated or revised returns from claiming refunds. Unless clarified or amended, this provision is a regressive departure and risks unfairly denying refunds to honest but delayed cognizance of this, the Select Committee has reportedly recommended for the deletion of this both laws, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 'may' dispose of appeals within a year. In reality, it often takes 4-5 years. Refunds get stuck, and justice is delayed. The current draft of the Bill does not make this timeline strengthening enforcement by authorising access to digital footprint, cloud data, and personal devices, the Bill raises privacy concerns. Strong oversight and clear limits must check the powers today often share ownership and income. But the tax law still treats each individual in isolation, leading to misattributed income or unwanted clubbing. The Bill missed an opportunity to allow for declaration-based beneficial ownership or joint filings. While enforcement adapts to the digital era, compliance is stuck in the simplification must entail easier TDS compliances and regime choices, faster refunds, timely appeals, privacy safeguards, and rules reflect real financial lives. Until these changes follow, the burden on honest taxpayers may remain largely unchanged.
The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
UAPA accused arrested via facial recognition system in J-K's Anantnag
The arrest was made after the suspect was detected through the Facial Recognition System installed by the Jammu and Kashmir Police at the X-Ray Point in Ganishbal. 'In a significant breakthrough, police in Anantnag successfully apprehended a suspicious individual identified as Muneeb Mushtaq Sheikh, a resident of Malik Mohalla, Drangbal Pampore,' he said. Srinagar, Jul 20 (PTI) Anantnag Police on Sunday arrested a suspect through the recently installed facial recognition system, a spokesperson said, adding that the man was involved in a UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) case. Upon detection, the individual was immediately taken into custody and shifted to Pahalgam police station for further verification, the spokesperson said. Subsequent inquiries revealed that Sheikh was involved in a case registered under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Explosive Substances Act, he said further. The swift identification and apprehension of the suspect highlights the effectiveness of advanced surveillance technologies in enhancing security and maintaining law and order, the police spokesperson added. PTI SSB RUK RUK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
New income tax bill 2025- Will fewer words mean fewer compliance burdens?
iStock While the new bill does simplify the language of its predecessor, the Income Tax Act 1961, it does clearly address certain challenges such as TDS issues, refund and appeal delays and more The new Income Tax Bill, 2025 is touted as a long-overdue rewrite of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tabled in Parliament on 13 February, it is leaner—nearly half the word count of the old Act—visually cleaner, and organised into schedules and tables for easy navigation. The Select Committee examining the Bill is likely to table its report on 21 July with 285 recommendations, as the monsoon session of Parliament begins. This brevity is welcome, but the real question is: has the law become easier to comply with, or just easier to read? For most salaried individuals, pensioners, HUFs, and small businesses—the bulk of India's taxpayers— clean language alone isn't enough. They seek a system that's truly easier: fewer hurdles, faster resolutions, and fairer treatment. Let's explore certain key areas that reveal the difference between surface-level simplification and real compliance ease. 1. Plain in language, but legally? The Bill does try to replace certain complicated legal jargons with easier-to-understand English counterparts. It replaces the confusing dual year concepts of 'assessment year' and 'previous year' with a uniform 'tax year'. Similarly, 'notwithstanding anything' makes way for the simpler phrase 'irrespective of'. However, the Bill does little to demystify these provisions for average brevity is mainly due to smart formatting. Long subsections, provisos and explanations have been recast into separate schedules and tables. While it improves readability, core legal complexities remain: e.g., bulky clauses of eligible saving and investment avenues in Section 80C of the existing Act are now part of Schedule XV, with a shorter main provision under Section 123 in the Bill—thus streamlining form, not Bill retains the substantive core of the existing Act. The five heads of income remain unchanged, as does the computational architecture. Key reliefs and thresholds, including the `12-lakh exemption in the new tax regime, are still there. This ensures continuity but also retains historical complexities. Areas like capital gains, holding periods, asset classification, overlapping exemptions under sections 54, 54EC, 54F, and fair market value (FMV) rules are untouched and navigating them demands expertise. 2. Tedious TDS compliance The new tabular layout for tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions—listing rates, thresholds, and deductee types—reduces confusion, but procedural pain points persist. Refunds of excess TDS mistakenly deducted and deposited by deductors still require manual follow-up, suffer delays, and lack transparency. The Bill misses an opportunity to mandate automatic system-driven refunds for over-deductions. 3. Faceless assessments issues In the current Act, Section 144B outlines faceless assessment in legislative the new Bill relegates this whole framework to executive rule-making under Section 273. By making it a government-notified scheme instead of embedding it in the law, the Bill lowers parliamentary oversight. It may offer administrative flexibility but dilutes legislative sanctity and taxpayer protection. Faceless reassessments, appeals and penalty proceedings are similarly diluted, raising worries on transparency and legal sanctity. 4. Belated returns & refund panic While Section 263 of the Bill, corresponding to Section 139 of the Act, mandates return filing by specified taxpayers on or before due date, it also adds a new category—any person seeking to claim a refund must now file their return by the due date. This requirement has no parallel in Section 139 of the current 239 of the current law allows refund claims through any return filed as per Section 139, including belated or revised returns. In the new Bill, Section 263(1)(a)(ix) disqualifies returns filed after the due date from claiming refunds, thus barring belated or revised returns from claiming refunds. Unless clarified or amended, this provision is a regressive departure and risks unfairly denying refunds to honest but delayed cognizance of this, the Select Committee has reportedly recommended for the deletion of this clause. 5. Delay in appeals continues Under both laws, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 'may' dispose of appeals within a year. In reality, it often takes 4-5 years. Refunds get stuck, and justice is delayed. The current draft of the Bill does not make this timeline mandatory. 6. Digital enforcement sans rights While strengthening enforcement by authorising access to digital footprint, cloud data, and personal devices, the Bill raises privacy concerns. Strong oversight and clear limits must check the powers given. 7. Family ownership Families today often share ownership and income. But the tax law still treats each individual in isolation, leading to misattributed income or unwanted clubbing. The Bill missed an opportunity to allow for declaration-based beneficial ownership or joint filings. While enforcement adapts to the digital era, compliance is stuck in the simplification must entail easier TDS compliances and regime choices, faster refunds, timely appeals, privacy safeguards, and rules reflect real financial lives. Until these changes follow, the burden on honest taxpayers may remain largely unchanged. The Auhtor is FOUNDER, TAXAARAM INDIA AND PARTNER, SM MOHANKA & ASSOCIATES (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of
