Munambam Waqf land row snowballs into political issue amid by-elections in Kerala
Union Minister Suresh Gopi recently met the 610 families of Munambam village who are protesting against the Waqf board's claim over their land.
The Kerala GST Department has found that Veena Vijayan’s firm had paid IGST for the transaction carried out between her company Exalogics Solutions and the black soil company Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL). The GST Commissioner has submitted a report stating that Veena had paid taxes.
The tax officials carried out inspections in Kerala and Karnataka, since Veena’s company is registered in Bengaluru and reportedly found that she has paid IGST for Rs 1.72 crore received from CMRL.
It is said that a report in this regard has been handed over to Finance Minister KN Balagopal by the Secretary of Taxes and it will be forwarded to the Chief Minister. It is not clear why Veena or the company has not yet released the documents if the amount had been paid.
Advertisement
At the same time, the GST Department had refused to respond to a question under the RTI Act on whether Exalogic had paid IGST on the amount received for services rendered to CMRL. The GST Department had responded that they cannot reply to the query as they have to protect the privacy of the individual.
In August, Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan had filed a complaint with the state Finance Minister KN Balagopal, alleging that Veena Vijayan’s firm did not pay IGST for Rs 1.72 crore received from CMRL. The Finance Minister forwarded the complaint to the Tax Department to examine the matter.
Mathew Kuzhal Nadan, who raised the complaint, demanded that the records of tax payments be released.
Reports said that Veena and her firm, Exalogic Solutions, had entered into an agreement with the private company to provide IT, marketing consultancy, and software services to the latter.
However, no services were provided, the income tax investigation found. The company told the Income Tax Department that the money was, however, paid in monthly instalments as per the contract. The Income Tax Disputes Redressal Board found that a nexus with a prominent person was behind the transaction.
Advertisement
