M A I N   N E W S

27 killed in Russian plane crash

A rescue worker removes dirt from a debris of Russian Ilyushin-18 plane on Tuesday, which crashed in the village of Zakharyino, some 20 km from the town of Kalyazin located approximately 250 km northeast of Moscow. The cockpit debris of an Ilyushin-18 plane lie in snow in the village of Zakharyino on Tuesday. — Reuters photos

Moscow, November 20
All 27 persons on board a passenger plane flying between Russia’s north and Moscow died when the turboprop aircraft crashed, the Ria Novosti news agency said, quoting the police.

The Ilyushin IL-18 came down at Kalyazin village, in the northern Tver region, after disappearing from radar screens last night, according to Russia’s Emergencies Ministry.

It was carrying 18 passengers and 9 crew members. A rescue team was at the site.

The passenger plane had taken off from the town of Khatanga and was four-and-a-half hours into its flight to Moscow when the crash happened.

The pilots had not signalled any problems up to the accident, the ministry said.

The Ilyushin IL-18 is a four-propeller aircraft able to seat around 100 passengers. It first started service in 1957 and was used in Russia and former Soviet states for regional flights.

Since 1960, there have been 79 crashes of IL-18s, both commercial and military, according to the aviation Safety Network, an independent group that keeps data on air disasters.

Russian rescue workers combing the snow-covered site where the plane ploughed into woods north-east of Moscow have recovered 10 bodies and three flight recorders, the ministry said today.

“Pieces of the plane are spread over an area of 2.5 km an Emergencies Ministry official said. “We have found the scattered remains of 10 persons.’’

The plane clipped treetops and summer cottages in the forest before crashing in an area dotted with villages. The official said there were no casualties on the ground. A total of 137 rescue workers were taking part in the operation.

But Russian news agencies said local authorities did not rule out a “terrorist act’’.

Ria news agency quoted Mr Viktor Osilov, head of the Air Transport Department in Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region, where the flight originated, as saying the crew had sent no alarm signals.

“This is one of many versions so far and we cannot rule it out,’’ the agency quoted him as saying.

The aircraft disappeared off the radar shortly before 6.30 p.m. (GMT), Interfax news agency said, after which residents heard a loud noise and saw flames light up against the night sky. Agencies

Cess on milk plants invalid: HC
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 20
In just over a year after an ordinance was promulgated levying cess at the rate of 10 paise per litre of the licensed capacity of a milk plant, Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice Ashutosh Mohunta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that the levy was invalid.

Pronouncing the orders, the Bench ruled that the state legislature was not competent to levy the cess, had “invaded the territory occupied by Parliament”, and as such the “impugned impost was ultra vires”. The Judges added that the “impugned impost was not a fee, but a tax” and also quashed notices issued by the Director of Punjab Dairy Development asking certain milk processing units to pay the cess.

The judgment is significant as the State Government’s move to abolish purchase tax and impose cess in its place was being seen as an attempt “to adopt a populist measure so as to leave out a large section of the taxpayers and to place the burden on the milk plants alone”.

Aggrieved by the levy of cess and the demand for payment, the petitioners had earlier contended that the state was not competent to promulgate the impugned legislation. Giving details, they had submitted that a milk processing unit was a “scheduled industry” controlled by the Union of India and thus governed by the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.Counsel for the petitioner had claimed that the levy was in fact a tax, not a fee, and was “beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature”.

The respondents, on the other hand, had initially admitted that the impugned impost was a tax. At a later stage, however, all respondents, except for the Punjab Dairy Development Board, pleaded that the levy was fee for the services to be provided. Their counsel had added that the fee would be spent for the improvement of the milk-shed areas allotted to the milk plants.

Answering the question whether the levy was fee or a tax, the Judges observed that the contention regarding the improvement of milk-shed areas could not be accepted. “The respondents have not allotted any milk-shed area to the petitioners. Still more, there is not an iota of evidence to show that the impugned levy shall be used for the benefit of the milk plants. The cess is to be credited to the fund. The payer cannot ask for any benefit”. The Judges added that the change in the stand of the respondents showed that they “themselves were not clear about the truth”.

Regarding the distinction between “tax” and “fee”, the Judges ruled: “The essential difference still exists. The only change is that the Courts do not insist that a major part must be spent for the benefit of the person who bears the burden. But he must get some benefit. A reasonable part of the amount must be spent to provide him with a special service. Otherwise, the impost may invite the criticism of being arbitrary and unreasonable. Of being a tax under the garb of fee”.

In reply to the second question regarding the levy being illegal, the Judges asserted: “The milk plants are a scheduled industry governed by the provisions of the 1951 Act and the 1992 Control Order. The Parliament has clearly declared that it is expedient in public interest to vest the control in the Central Government. Keeping in view the declared objective and the provisions of the 1951 Act, it is clear that the state legislature has invaded the territory occupied by the Parliament. Thus, the impugned impost is ultra vires”.

Elabourating upon the functioning of the Dairy Development Board, the Judges said: “What emerges from a perusal of the provisions of the Act is that the Board has 25 members with the Chief Minister at the apex. All the members are either connected with the government or nominated by it. The Board has to work in consultation with the State Government. It can create posts and make appointments thereto but only with the prior approval of the State Government. The Board is bound to make compliance with the directions that may be given by the government from time to time. Thus, it is clear that the Board is really an agency of the State Government. The governmental control really permeates the functioning of the Board. Counsel for the petitioners appears to be right in his submission that the Board is a shadow of the government. There is hardly any discernible difference between the Board and a department of the government”.