Investment friendly land acquisition policies of Southern States have pushed them go far ahead in getting larger number of SEZs notified as against States in North India, which do not provide right environment for SEZs investors to get their proposals formally approved and notified reveals a joint report of PWC and ASSOCHAM.
The report of State Wise Distribution of SEZs in India adds that for example in Tamil Nadu, 69 SEZs have so far been approved by government of which 54 are notified and in majority of them construction work is commenced. Likewise, in Andhra, number of SEZs formally approved stands at 103, out of which 70 such facilities are notified as on date.
In Karnataka and Kerala numbers of SEZs approved are respectively 53 and 25 of which 30 and 10 have been notified reveals the ASSOCHAM PWC Paper.
Mr Sajjan Jindal president of ASSOCHAM said that the situation in Northern part is comparatively adverse and it’s state governments are partly responsible for it as land acquisition in Northern part has been consistently subject to intense controversies because of loopholes in their policies.
A case for example is that of State of Punjab in which the centre so far approved 10 SEZs for it and only 2 SEZs have so far been notified for the State. Likewise, State of Uttar Pradesh in which 34 SEZs have been approved, notification for SEZs numbering 16 have so far been issued and in the entire State, if there is 1 worth mentioning operational
SEZ is, ie Noida SEZs, remaining hung up in one controversy or other.
In State of Madhya Pradesh, 14 SEZs are formally approved against which only 5 are notified. However, the progress in Rajasthan is extremely satisfactory in which 8 SEZs are approved and 7 of them are notified.
The ASSOCHAM-PWC have jointly recommended that wherever work for commissioning SEZs is being delayed, the government should ensure their de-notification as current SEZs rules do not provide for a specific de-notification process. The two organizations also pointed out that the SEZs benefits and exemptions do not encourage the ancillary industries/vendors/support manufacturers of the main industry to house themselves in the SEZs and accordingly modification need to be made.
An SEZ unit supplying to another SEZs does not get any income-tax benefit on account of existing definition of exports under the income tax Act. This anomaly needs to be corrected.
The ASSOCHAM has also pointed out that the new Direct Tax Code as it stands today proposes not to provide any fiscal benefits/tax exemptions to SEZ units. SEZ developers benefits are proposed to be transitioned from the profit based incentive under Section 10IAB to investment based reduction without any fixed period. It is therefore, suggested that tax incentives need to be carried on for SEZs in the tax code proposed by the UPA government.
Source : Steelguru