Home » Vocational » Stenography » Shorthand Dictation 80 Words per minute “ Taxation” , Test 10 Minutes with 10 Minutes Audio Dictation, Shorthand Outline and Text Matter. Test 11

Shorthand Dictation 80 Words per minute “ Taxation” , Test 10 Minutes with 10 Minutes Audio Dictation, Shorthand Outline and Text Matter. Test 11

Image_47_1I have said, I have not denied it.  But it is not a taxation measure in the ordinary sense/ of the term.  If we had not done it, we could not have taken it up.  If we had waited/ for bringing in a measure in the House, at that time what were we to do for the interim period?/ Could we have allowed it to be passed on to the consumers for two months and then levy it again? / It would have been real taxation in the middle of the year.  But that is not so in this particular (100) case.  More so because as I have said earlier in my speech this an ad hoc reduction.  The condition/ of the agreement is that if, after examination by the, Cost Accountants, it is found that what we have taken/ is not justified by costs, we will have to give them a rebate.  If we find at the end that/ their costs are still less, we will be entitled to a greater reduction, it would not have caused any harm/ but if we had to return anything then it would have been very difficult to return it, if it had (200) been passed on the consumers because in that case we would have to give a rebate.  The rebate would have/ been given by getting something more from future consumers and the present consumers would have got all the advantages and/ I do not think that it would have been a fair proposition.

          It is, therefore, that after a great deal/ of deliberation we decided to go this.  The question was asked as to why we took so much time from/ the 20th of May to 30th of June to promulgate that Ordinance. That shows that we did not do lightly (300) and we gave great thought to it. We examined all the sides of the question before we came to that/ conclusion.  We do not want at any time to take resort to Ordinance to levy taxes or for any such purpose. / An Ordinance is deliberately provided for in the Constitution  and nobody objects to it.  No Government would be possible if/ there were not such a provision.  It is, therefore, there for use.  Whether the use is justified or not is/ the main question.  Was there an emergency or not-emergency of the type supposed when this Article was introduced in (400) the Constitution? In view of theImage_47_2 circumstances which I have explained, I feel that the Government would have failed in/ its duty if it did not promulgate that Ordinance and mop-up this profit which would, otherwise, have been frittered./   away and the consumers would; not have been benefited. It is, therefore, that this Ordinance is fully justified and as / we have come to the House with the Bill, there could be no argument that we are trying to get it away from the House and that we have got all the respect for the House which we should have. (500) That argument, therefore, does not hold at all. As I said in the course of the same argument, there is / no question of a large number of consumers losing anything in this particular matter, because really speaking, the consumers would/ not have been benefited if we had not mopped up this reduction. The price reduction would have been very little. / Some of those who are owners of cars and use them for their own purposes would have certainly benefited to/ some extent but these people can afford to forego this benefit in the larger interests of he country. The large (600) number of  people would not have benefited at all. It is only a few people who would have accelerated their/ profits. Is that the intention of the House that more profits should go to people even where they did not/ expect more profits? They could not have reduced the prices or the rates of  tickets. Therefore, it was considered necessary / and appropriate that this reduction should not be passed on.

I was intrigues by the argument advanced, by my honourable/ friend. He has said that if this extra amount that has some to the Government is earmarked for (700) exploration of oil, it would be some injustice done o the oil companies and it would perhaps hamper my work/ when I am going outside. I do not know whether it is a suggestion thrown out and I do / not think that the oil companies would be so unreasonable as to make a grievance of a factor about which no / grievance can be made. The oil companies have agreed to this reduction because they find that the arguments advanced by/ the Government are such that they cannot be denied and that they have to be accepted. We have alos accepted, (800) therefore, that if after examination by the cost Accountants we are not correct in our assumptions, we will give a / rebate to them but if on the contrary the reduction is justified and more reduction also is justified, then we / will be entitled to more reductions.

About

The main objective of this website is to provide quality study material to all students (from 1st to 12th class of any board) irrespective of their background as our motto is “Education for Everyone”. It is also a very good platform for teachers who want to share their valuable knowledge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.