MAM
SC Panel announces guidelines for govt ads
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court-appointed high- powered committee recently announced guidelines on government advertisements in order to prevent misuse of public funds for furthering political motives.
The guidelines recommend that names and pictures of political parties and their office bearers should be not mentioned in government advertisements.
The report, submitted to the apex court, also emphasises that only pictures and names of the President, the Prime Minister, Governor and Chief Ministers be published to ‘keep politics away from such ads’.
The guidelines have been framed by a three-member committee headed by eminent academician Professor NR Madhava Menon to regulate expenditure and contents of such advertisements paid out of tax payers’ money. The committee also comprises of former secretary general of Lok Sabha TK Viswanathan and solicitor general Ranjit Kumar. The apex court had decided to frame these guidelines on 23 April to prevent the misuse of public money.
The apex court bench headed by chief justice P Sathasivam with justice Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana had said that the existing guidelines of the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) do not cover such advertisements. There was therefore a need for substantive guidelines to be issued by the Court until the legislature enacts a law in this regard.
The report also added that the committee has included suggestions of the Election Commission about severe restrictions on such advertisements six months prior to elections.
It further endorsed that a deadline should be fixed for prohibiting their publication and the poll panel should be authorised for the purpose.
The report recommended that the central and state governments must decide in advance on a list of personalities whose birth or death anniversaries will be marked with ads.
The government must then specify which Ministry should release the ad to avoid different departments and state-run companies from paying tribute to the same leader with a multitude of ads. “There should be a single advertisement only,” the Committee said.
The Bench had also noted that the Directorate of Advertisement and Visual Publicity (DAVP) guidelines do not lay down any criteria for the advertisements to qualify for public purpose as opposed to partisan ends and political mileage, adding that there is a need to distinguish between the advertisements that are part of government messaging and daily business and advertisements that are politically motivated.
The Government in its counter affidavit claimed that 60 per cent of the advertisements released by the DAVP on behalf of various ministries/departments/public sector undertakings of the Central Government relate to classified or display/classified category such as UPSC/SSC or recruitment, tender and public notices, etc. The respondents asserted that government advertisements sometime carry messages from national leaders, ministers and dignitaries accompanied with their photographs.
However, Government counsel K Radhakrishnan said the purpose of such advertisements is not to give personal publicity to the leaders or to the political parties they belong to rather the objective is to let the people know and have authentic information about the progress of the programmes/performance of the government they elected and form informed opinions, which is one of the fundamental rights of the citizens in our democracy as enshrined in the constitution.
Brands
Jubilant FoodWorks faces Rs 47.5 crore GST demand, plans appeal
Tax authorities flag alleged misclassification of restaurant services
MUMBAI:Â Jubilant FoodWorks Limited has landed in a tax tussle after receiving a GST demand of Rs 47.5 crore from the office of the additional commissioner of CGST and central excise in Thane, Maharashtra.
The order, issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relates to an alleged incorrect classification of certain services under the category of restaurant services. According to the tax authorities, this classification resulted in a short payment of goods and services tax for the period between the financial years 2019-20 and 2021-22.
The demand includes Rs 47.5 crore in GST along with an equal amount as penalty, in addition to applicable interest. The order was received by the company on March 13, 2026.
In a regulatory filing to the BSE Limited and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, the company said it disagrees with the order and believes its arguments were not adequately considered.
The company is preparing to challenge the decision and plans to file an appeal. It added that once the redressal process is complete, the demand is likely to be dropped.
Despite the sizeable figure attached to the notice, the company said it does not expect any material impact on its financials, operations or other activities.
The disclosure was signed by Suman Hegde, EVP and chief financial officer, who confirmed that the company received the order at 19:06 IST on March 13 and has already initiated steps to contest it.
The development places the quick service restaurant major in the middle of a tax debate that could hinge on how certain restaurant-linked services are classified under GST rules. For now, the company appears ready to take the matter from the tax office to the appeals desk.
