Extract strategy case: Arvind Kejriwal skirts seventh ED summons
Delhi Boss Priest Arvind Kejriwal on Monday skirted the Requirement Directorate’s seventh summons for addressing in the extract strategy connected tax evasion case.
Prior, the ED sent a seventh summons to Kejriwal on February 22 after the Delhi CM didn’t show up before the test organization on the 6th request for addressing in a tax evasion case, with his party naming the request as “unlawful”.
What is the situation
As indicated by the test organizations, the Delhi government’s extract strategy for 2021-22 to give licenses to alcohol merchants permitted cartelisation and inclined toward specific sellers who had purportedly offered incentives for it, a charge over and over invalidated by the AAP. The strategy was rejected after Delhi LG V K Saxena in July, 2022, suggested a CBI test into supposed anomalies and failures in its execution. After the CBI, the ED likewise enlisted a case under the Counteraction of Tax evasion Act (PMLA) regarding this situation.
The Allegations:
The core allegation revolves around the Delhi government’s extract policy for 2021-22, which allegedly facilitated cartelization and favored specific alcohol vendors who purportedly offered incentives. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have been actively investigating these claims, citing potential violations of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Kejriwal’s Response:
Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, has faced multiple summons from the Enforcement Directorate for questioning regarding the extract policy. However, he has consistently skirted these summons, with his party labeling them as “unlawful.” Kejriwal’s avoidance of interrogation has intensified the scrutiny surrounding his government’s actions.
Rejection of the Policy:
The controversy reached its peak when Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena recommended a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and failures in the implementation of the extract policy. Subsequently, the policy was rejected, further fueling suspicions of wrongdoing within the administration.
Counterarguments by AAP:
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), led by Kejriwal, has vehemently denied the allegations leveled against them. They argue that the extract policy was transparent and aimed at reforming the alcohol retail sector. AAP insists that the accusations of favoritism and cartelization are baseless and politically motivated.
Investigative Actions:
In response to mounting pressure, both the CBI and ED have initiated investigations under the PMLA to delve deeper into the alleged financial irregularities. These investigations signify a concerted effort to unravel the truth behind the contentious extract policy and its implementation.
Conclusion:
The Arvind Kejriwal extract policy controversy underscores the intersection of politics, governance, and accountability. As investigations continue, the spotlight remains firmly fixed on the actions of the Delhi government and its leadership. The outcome of these probes will not only shape perceptions of governance in Delhi but also impact the political landscape at large.