Centre agrees to clear FY21 pending GST compensation of Rs 11,400 cr in instalments: Karnataka CM
New Delhi: Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai has said the Centre has agreed to give last year's pending GST compensation of Rs 11,400 crore at the earliest in instalments.
His statement came after meeting Union Finance Minister Nirmal Sitharaman in the national capital on Friday.
He said the funds are required urgently to meet the Covid-19 and other expenses in the state.
"I have requested for payment of last year dues in GST compensation of Rs 11,400 crore. The FM has agreed to give it in instalments. She will start releasing it immediately," Bommai told reporters after the meeting.
Bommai, who is also a member of the GST Council, said the state had received a GST compensation of Rs 12,000 crore for the 2020-21 fiscal. However, the pending amount was Rs 11,400 crore, he said.
The chief minister also sought early release of GST compensation of about Rs 18,000 crore for the current fiscal and funds for the centrally sponsored schemes.
"She (FM) has promised a lot of help for the agriculture sector through NABARD," he said.
This was his first visit to Delhi after becoming the chief minister.
On the second day of his visit, the chief minister also called on Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi.
He also visited Raj Ghat to pay tribute to Mahatma Gandhi. He also paid tribute to former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at his memorial Sadaiv Atal here.
On Friday, Bommai had called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He also met Home Minister Amit Shah and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.
He had also met MPs from the state at Hotel Ashoka here.
Bommai, who was elected as the new leader of the BJP legislature party on Tuesday, following B S Yediyurappa's resignation, took oath as the chief minister on Wednesday.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
22 states sue to block Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship
Attorneys general from 22 states have filed a lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a policy that grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The order, issued Monday, has sparked significant debate and is expected to lead to a prolonged legal battle.
Birthright citizenship, protected under the 14th Amendment, has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy since its ratification in 1868. The amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s order, however, seeks to reinterpret this provision, excluding children born to individuals in the U.S. illegally or temporarily and those whose fathers are non-citizens or lack lawful permanent residency.
The order is set to take effect on February 19, prompting 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the city of San Francisco to file suit in federal court. Critics argue that the executive order oversteps constitutional bounds and undermines settled law.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin emphasized that presidential authority is not absolute. "The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, erase the 14th Amendment," Platkin said. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who is a birthright citizen, called the lawsuit deeply personal, stating, “This is about protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution.”
The Trump administration has defended the order, dismissing the lawsuit as “an extension of the Left’s resistance.” The White House insists that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship requires reform to address immigration challenges.
Immigration advocates and legal experts warn that the order could destabilize long-established citizenship rights, particularly for children born to undocumented or temporary residents. Gladys Vega, President of La Colaborativa, criticized the move during a press conference, describing it as a direct attack on constitutional protections.
