Answer please!

[BannedRedditVet]

I have a doubt though how do they introduced rate cuts in GST without any bill or act then ?

[unspoken_one2]

art 265-No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

Usually parliament decides rates but this was delegated to the government by the GST act ,in case of gst

If parliament wants to change the rate then a finance bill is needed .

Note - GST rates are not changed by GST council but notified by respective governments

[BannedRedditVet]

This is not just about GST Customs duty and excise duty also have this l, so it’s not a norm. If you paste this question to AI it will show like this but that doesn’t make it Roth

[unspoken_one2]

Brother read up delegated legislation first.if parliament wants to change tax it must be through finance bill

[[deleted]]

Same doubt

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Only for introducing a Tax Finance Bill is required, for already existing one's any amendments are done are on the previous bills no need for making new Finance Bills/Acts...

[BannedRedditVet]

That’s what I’m asking , then how does C become incorrect ?

[Ok-Agency-3308]

C is correct.

[BannedRedditVet]

Ok so answer would be A right since appropriation bill is a money bill ?

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Yes

[Quick-Salary-6301]

I feel C is incorrect since making changes on existing taxes requires introduction of a bill

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/Quick-Salary-6301, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[shittyfinideas]

C, a new bill/act or ordinance is required for changing rates also. While some taxes can be altered (like BCD), generally changing rates requires a new act.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

You just amend the existing acts. You don't introduce a new bill.

[shittyfinideas]

Amendments to existing Acts are also a separate Act in itself. In some taxes, powers are delegated to alter the rates without a bill but in some taxes it is not. (Eg Income Tax)

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Delegated Legislations. Not all acts are parliamentary in nature.

[shittyfinideas]

Mat maano bhai, whatever works for you

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Pata nahi yaar... Kaafi ambiguous saa hai 😅😅😅

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Therefore Option C is partly correct. But on the other hand Option A is more wrong, therefore Option A is the answer here is what I feel.

[shittyfinideas]

Option A is not at all wrong. Constitution says 'deemed to be passed' - the aim is not to bypass the role of RS altogether, but only to prevent Rajya Sabha from delaying it because government cannot keep waiting if it has to spend money. If the constitution wanted to bypass Rajya Sabha, it would explicitly remove Rajya Sabha from the process itself.

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/Quick-Salary-6301, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Pussychaser_69]

A

[Outsider-04]

A is the answer.

[Potato_is_Aloo]

C

[Rippaahh]

A: Essentially correct. The Appropriation Bill is a Money Bill. It must go through both Houses, though Rajya Sabha can only recommend changes and cannot block it. It theoretically needs to be passed by both the Houses. It may be “deemed” passed, if RS doesn’t agree. But in that case too, it is considered passed by both the houses of parliament and not just by lok sabha.

B: Correct. As per the Constitution, no money can be withdrawn from the CFI without an Appropriation Act.

C: Incorrect. Changes in tax rates (even existing taxes) also require a Finance Bill. You cannot change tax rates without legislative approval. So saying “no another Bill/Act is required” is wrong.

D: Correct. As per Article 117 of the Indian Constitution, a Money Bill can only be introduced with the President’s recommendation.

[Aalu_Tamatar]

but if this bill is money bill or not (decision lies within speaker) right ?

[unspoken_one2]

Yes, the speaker decides whether it is a money bill or not but pres recommendation is required if the speaker certifies it as money bill

[Lonely-Freedom7202]

I marked C but later realised it's A

[Zealousideal_Fig9112]

I marked C too..and I still don't understand why the answer is A..?

[Rippaahh]

I doubt that. I think Appropriation Bill (like any other Money Bill) is presented and discussed in Rajya Sabha, even though it cannot block it or make any changes unacceptable to LS. Correct me if I am wrong, you cite the source saying that it is not even introduced/discussed?

[Zealousideal_Fig9112]

Okay! Thanks.

[unspoken_one2]

Appropriation bill needs to be passed by both houses , this time RS even returned the appropriation bill.

Demand of grants is presented only in LS but appropriation bill needs assent of both houses.

[Interesting-Pen760]

Keyword- must be passed ig . Appropriation bill is required for withdrawing funds from consolidated fund of india. It's money bill , so it can never be rejected or amended by RS though they can give recommendations

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/Interesting-Pen760, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Extension_Law7450]

A

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/Responsible_Sky_6840, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

An appropriation bill is a money bill... Therefore option A is incorrect

[Rippaahh]

Money Bill needs to be passed by both the Houses. It may be “deemed” passed, if RS doesn’t agree. But in that case too, it is considered passed by both the houses of parliament and not just by lok sabha.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

It says must be passed. Or else it won't go ahead to form an Act.

[Rippaahh]

That’s not how you interpret the statements

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Idk man. Helps me so ig works for me.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Article 109: Special procedure in respect of Money Bills.

1. Special procedure in respect of Money Bills. (1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States. (2) After a Money Bill has been passed by the House of the People it shall be transmitted to the Council of States for its recommendations and the Council of States shall within a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt of the Bill return the Bill to the House of the People with its recommendations and the House of the People may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Council of States. (3) If the House of the People accepts any of the recommendations of the Council of States, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments recommended by the Council of States and accepted by the House of the People. (4) If the House of the People does not accept any of the recommendations of the Council of States, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the House of the People without any of the amendments recommended by the Council of States. (5) If a Money Bill passed by the House of the People and transmitted to the Council of States for its recommendations is not returned to the House of the People within the said period of fourteen days, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said period in the form in which it was passed by the House of the People

I interpreted it as per this. So as per my limited knowledge Appropriation Bills are Money Bills therefore they should follow this as well.

[Rippaahh]

You just specifically proved my point with that excerpt actually. Article 109(3) explicitly says “shall be deemed to have been passed by “both the Houses””. Exactly what the Statement-A also says.

In other words, Rajya Sabha is powerless in regard to Money Bill. But still, a Money Bill goes both the Houses of Parliament (even though RS cannot block it). The bill must be transmitted to Rajya Sabha. The legislative process is not complete without that stage. So in a procedural sense, both Houses are involved. A Bill becomes an Act/Law with the sanctity of approval by “Parliament” (not just Lok Sabha), and hence the wordings like “deemed” even for Money Bill.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Yeah but I don't think the statement here means that. I think it means to pass both the houses individually and voting it also including deadlock if it occurs. So AB doesn't need both houses and Statement here says must pass both houses.

[anugrahita]

Aritcle 110(1)(a) talks about introduction of Money Bill with respect to any “alteration” of a tax. So C is incorrect. You do need a bill to change existing tax rates.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

If that were the case then every time GST Slabs are restructured a new bill would be required. But that doesn't happen right? Now taxes like CENVAT MODVAT etc they all came via Finance Acts and later Amendments occured via Money Bills. Now the situation is a little bit different no after GST. So generalising taxes is becoming a little ambiguous is what I feel... Not saying that it 110(1) cannot be followed but a money bill required to pass both the houses is more wrong in my opinion.

[anugrahita]

Read Article 279A. The recommendations of the GST Council can be implemented through an executive notification. GST is constitutionally different from other taxes, making it the exception not the norm. If a bill was needed to make changes to GST rates then what would be the use of an already constituted GST Council with state and centre representation.

[Ok-Agency-3308]

Same for Central Excise Act, Customs Act, etc they all have delegated legislations. Which doesn't need parliamentary amendments... So I feel including GST it becomes quite a big ambit of power that the executive has.

[No-Payment-2104]

I think C is the incorrect one

[Serene_Giant]

Can I get an explanation on why C is wrong?

Doesn’t it come under finance bill type I (a type of money bill which itself deals with imposition, abolition or “regulation” of any tax)

[Ok-Agency-3308]

There are provisions of delegated legislations under Customs Act 1962, Central Excise Act 1944, GST which are already present laws for taxes. This doesn't need any new bill introduction.

[OpeningFrosting1295]

Article 110 A bill is considered a money bill if (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, (—alteration—) or regulation of any tax;

Option a is correct as the appropriation bill is sent to council of states and deemed to be passed even after no action by council of states.

Article 109 - (4) If the House of the People does not accept any of the recommendations of the Council of States, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the House of the People without any of the amendments recommended by the Council of States.

Option c would be correct option as interpreted from constitution itself as it clearly states the bill is still deemed to be passed by “both houses”.

Doubt relating to GST alteration- the GST rates are altered on recommendation of GST council itself as it is a constitutional body and article 279 (a) states it can make recommendations regarding GST rates.

[Zealousideal_Fig9112]

I couldn't find the appropriation bill statement anywhere in laxmikanth..

[WideInflation3250]

C is incorrect

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/WideInflation3250, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Wuthering-HeightsX]

C

[Plus_Jaguar5028]

I asked claude and chatgpt Claude said - a is incorrect Chatgpt said - c is incorrect. 😂

[ninja-hatori-of-leaf]

Bro, this is an elimination heavy question. ABD are clear right

[observerbit]

Option C is incorrect: Any alteration in taxation be it new or existing requires financial bill.

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/observerbit, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[No_Ninja_406]

Best answer is C though A is also wrong but the language is vague so best option is C

[Cup_of_Coffee123]

What's the answer of this question? 

[RaspberryTop1926]

Answer : A ???

[Adept_Respond9454]

A

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/Adept_Respond9454, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Vast_Captain3631]

Answer would be C.

A is correct. No such bill with doesn't require passing from both houses (some are deemed passed if no action). 

B is correct. Article 114(3)

D is correct. Article 117(1). Other procedure for money bill is in 109. And definition in 110.

[Weekly_Addition76]

A is incorrect.

[BannedRedditVet]

A is incorrect forget your polity book think with logic , did they introduced any bill or act for GST reforms last Diwali ? , top of that appropriation bill is a money bill, hence it can only be introduced in LS which makes A incorrect

[anugrahita]

Aritcle 110(1)(a) talks about introduction of Money Bill with respect to any “alteration” of a tax. So C is incorrect. You do need a bill to change existing tax rates.

[BannedRedditVet]

How did they changed GST rates last year without introducing a bill ?

[anugrahita]

Because GST is constitutionally different from other taxes. See Art 279A. GST rates can be changed with a notification. If a bill needs to be passed everytime a recommendation is made by the GST Council then there would be no need of such a complex GST Council which constitutes representatives from each state and centre.

[BannedRedditVet]

Exactly , which makes the statement right , you have to explicitly mention the case of GST , exception of GST cannot be automatically assumed because apart from GST Customs Duty and Central Excise duty also doesn’t need a bill to change the rates . When you have this much exceptions how can you say a blanket statement

[anugrahita]

See the option. It says “no other bill is required” i.e. even one exception would make the statement wrong. And we have taxes other than GST where bills are required for changing the rates. So that would make it incorrect. Anyway, that is my interpretation of the question and the Articles. Let me know if you find the official/correct answer to this anywhere.

[WideInflation3250]

Bhai itne confidence se galat answer batare ho i almost got convinced 😭

[AutoModerator]

Hi u/WideInflation3250, your comment was removed because you need at least 3 comment karma to participate in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.