The Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, presented the Union Budget for the financial year 2019-20 in Parliament on July 5, 2019. In the 2019-20 budget, the government presented the estimates of its expenditure and receipts for the year 2019-20. The budget also gave an account of how much money the government raised or spent in 2017-18. In addition, the budget also presented the revised estimates made by the government for the year 2018-19 in comparison to the estimates it had given to Parliament in the previous year’s budget.
What are revised estimates?
Some of the estimates made by the government might change during the course of the year. For instance, once the year gets underway, some ministries may need more funds than what was actually allocated to them in the budget, or the receipts expected from certain sources might change. Such deviations from the budget estimates get reflected in the figures released by the government at later stages as part of the subsequent budgets. Once the year ends, the actual numbers are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), post which they are presented to Parliament with the upcoming budget, i.e. two years after the estimates are made.
For instance, estimates for the year 2018-19 were presented as part of the 2018-19 budget in February 2018. In the 2019-20 interim budget presented in February 2019 (10 months after the financial year 2018-19 got underway), the government revised these estimates based on the actual receipts and expenditure accounted so far during the year and incorporated estimates for the remaining two months.
The actual receipts and expenditure accounts of the central government are maintained by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis. In addition to the monthly accounts, the CGA also publishes the provisional unaudited figures for the financial year by the end of the month of May. Once these provisional figures are audited by the CAG, they are presented as actuals in next year’s budget. The CGA reported the figures for 2018-19 on May 31, 2019.[1] The Economic Survey 2018-19 presented on July 4, 2019 uses these figures.[2]
The budget presented on July 5 replicates the revised estimates reported as part of the interim budget (February 1, 2019). Thus, it did not take into account the updated figures for the year 2018-19 from the CGA.
Table 1 gives a comparison of the 2018-19 revised estimates presented by the central government in the budget with the provisional unaudited figures maintained by the CGA for the year 2018-19.[3]
Table 1: Budget at a Glance: Comparison of 2018-19 revised estimates with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)
|
Actuals |
Budgeted |
Revised |
Provisional |
Difference |
|
|
Revenue Expenditure |
18,78,833 |
21,41,772 |
21,40,612 |
20,08,463 |
-1,32,149 |
|
Capital Expenditure |
2,63,140 |
3,00,441 |
3,16,623 |
3,02,959 |
-13,664 |
|
Total Expenditure |
21,41,973 |
24,42,213 |
24,57,235 |
23,11,422 |
-1,45,813 |
|
Revenue Receipts |
14,35,233 |
17,25,738 |
17,29,682 |
15,63,170 |
-1,66,512 |
|
Capital Receipts |
1,15,678 |
92,199 |
93,155 |
1,02,885 |
9,730 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries of Loans |
15,633 |
12,199 |
13,155 |
17,840 |
4,685 |
|
Other receipts (including disinvestments) |
1,00,045 |
80,000 |
80,000 |
85,045 |
5,045 |
|
Total Receipts (without borrowings) |
15,50,911 |
18,17,937 |
18,22,837 |
16,66,055 |
-1,56,782 |
|
Revenue Deficit |
4,43,600 |
4,16,034 |
4,10,930 |
4,45,293 |
34,363 |
|
% of GDP |
2.6 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
|
|
Fiscal Deficit |
5,91,062 |
6,24,276 |
6,34,398 |
6,45,367 |
10,969 |
|
% of GDP |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
|
Primary Deficit |
62,110 |
48,481 |
46,828 |
62,692 |
15,864 |
|
% of GDP |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
|
Sources: Budget at a Glance, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.
The 2018-19 provisional figures for revenue receipts is Rs 15,63,170 crore, which is Rs 1,66,512 crore less than the revised estimates. This is largely due to Rs 1,67,455 crore shortfall in centre’s net tax revenue between the revised estimates and the provisional estimates (Table 2).
Major taxes which see a shortfall between the gross tax revenue presented in the revised estimates vis-à-vis the provisional figures are income tax (Rs 67,346 crore) and GST (Rs 59,930 crore). Non-tax revenue and disinvestment receipts as per the provisional figures are higher than the revised estimates.
Table 2: Break up of central government receipts: Comparison of 2018-19 RE with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)
|
|
Actuals |
Budgeted |
Revised |
Provisional |
Difference |
|
Gross Tax Revenue |
19,19,009 |
22,71,242 |
22,48,175 |
20,80,203 |
-1,67,972 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporation Tax |
5,71,202 |
6,21,000 |
6,71,000 |
6,63,572 |
-7,428 |
|
Taxes on Income |
4,30,772 |
5,29,000 |
5,29,000 |
4,61,654 |
-67,346 |
|
Goods and Services Tax |
4,42,562 |
7,43,900 |
6,43,900 |
5,83,970 |
-59,930 |
|
Customs |
1,29,030 |
1,12,500 |
1,30,038 |
1,17,930 |
-12,108 |
|
Union Excise Duties |
2,59,431 |
2,59,600 |
2,59,612 |
2,30,998 |
-28,614 |
|
A. Centre's Net Tax Revenue |
12,42,488 |
14,80,649 |
14,84,406 |
13,16,951 |
-1,67,455 |
|
B. Non Tax Revenue |
1,92,745 |
2,45,089 |
2,45,276 |
2,46,219 |
943 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Receipts |
13,574 |
15,162 |
12,047 |
12,815 |
768 |
|
Dividend and Profits |
91,361 |
1,07,312 |
1,19,264 |
1,13,424 |
-5,840 |
|
Other Non-Tax Revenue |
87,810 |
1,22,615 |
1,13,965 |
1,19,980 |
6,015 |
|
C. Capital Receipts (without borrowings) |
1,15,678 |
92,199 |
93,155 |
1,02,885 |
9,730 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disinvestment |
1,00,045 |
80,000 |
80,000 |
85,045 |
5,045 |
|
Receipts (without borrowings) (A+B+C) |
15,50,911 |
18,17,937 |
18,22,837 |
16,66,055 |
-1,56,782 |
|
Borrowings |
5,91,062 |
6,24,276 |
6,34,398 |
6,45,367 |
10,969 |
|
Total Receipts (including borrowings) |
21,41,973 |
24,42,213 |
24,57,235 |
23,11,422 |
-1,45,813 |
Note: Centre’s net tax revenue is gross tax revenue less share of states in central taxes. Figures for GST include receipts from the GST compensation cess. Note that GST was levied for a nine-month period during the year 2017-18, starting July 2017.
Sources: Receipts Budget, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.
While the provisional figures show a considerable decrease in receipts (Rs 1,56,782 crore) as compared to the revised estimates, fiscal deficit has not shown a comparable increase. Fiscal deficit is estimated to be Rs 10,969 crore higher than the revised estimates as per the provisional accounts.
On the expenditure side, the total expenditure as per the provisional figures show a decrease of Rs 1,45,813 crore as compared to the revised estimates. Certain Ministries and expenditure items have seen a decrease in expenditure as compared to the revised estimates made by the government. As per the provisional accounts, the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution are Rs 22,133 crore and Rs 70,712 crore lower than the revised estimates, respectively. The decrease in the Ministries’ expenditure as a percentage of the revised estimates are 29% and 39%, respectively. The food subsidy according to CGA was Rs 1,01,904 crore, which was Rs 69,394 crore lower than the revised estimates for the year 2018-19 given in the budget documents.
[1] “Accounts of the Union Government of India (Provisional/Unaudited) for the Financial Year 2018-19”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance, May 31, 2019.
[2] Fiscal Developments, Economic Survey 2018-19, https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap02_vol2.pdf.
[3] Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, March 2018-19, http://www.cga.nic.in/MonthlyReport/Published/3/2018-2019.aspx.
The Union government’s Cabinet Committee on Security recently gave clearance to the Home Ministry’s NATGRID project. The project aims to allow investigation and law enforcement agencies to access real-time information from data stored with agencies such as the Income Tax Department, banks, insurance companies, Indian Railways, credit card transactions, and more. NATGRID, like a number of other government initiatives (UIDAI), is being established through governmental notifications rather than legislation passed in Parliament. The examination of this issue requires an assessment of the benefits of legislation vis-a-vis government notifications. Government notifications can be issued either under a specific law, or independent of a parent law, provided that the department issuing such notification has the power to do so. Rules, regulations which are notified have the advantage of flexibility since they can be changed without seeking Parliamentary approval. This advantage of initiating projects or establishing institutions through government notifications is also potentially of detriment to the system of checks and balances that a democracy rests on. For, while legislation takes a longer time to be enacted (it is discussed, modified and debated in Parliament before being put to vote), this also enables elected representatives to oversee various dimensions of such projects. In the case of NATGRID, the process would provide Parliamentarians the opportunity to debate the conditions under which private individual information can be accessed, what information may be accessed, and for what purpose. This time consuming process is in fact of valuable import to projects such as NATGRID which have a potential impact on fundamental rights. Finally, because changing a law is itself a rigorous process, the conditions imposed on the access to personal information attain a degree of finality and cannot be ignored or deviated from. Government rules and regulations on the other hand, can be changed by the concerned department as and when it deems necessary. Though even governmental action can be challenged if it infringes fundamental rights, well-defined limits within laws passed by Parliament can help provide a comprehensive set of rules which would prevent their infringement in the first place. The Parliamentary deliberative process in framing a law is thus even more important than the law itself. This is especially so in cases of government initiatives affecting justiciable rights. This deliberative process, or the potential scrutiny of government drafted legislation on the floor of Parliament ensures that limitations on government discretion are clearly laid down, and remedies to unauthorised acts are set in stone. This also ensures that the authority seeking to implement the project is The other issue pertains to the legal validity of the project itself. Presently, certain departmental agencies maintain databases of personal information which helps them provide essential services, or maintain law and order. The authority to maintain such databases flows from the laws which define their functions and obligations. So the power of maintaining legal databases is implicit because of the nature of functions these agencies perform. However, there is no implicit or explicit authorization to the convergence of these independent databases. One may argue that the government is not legally prevented from interlinking databases. However, the absence of a legal challenge to the creation of NATGRID does not take away from the importance of establishing such a body through constitutionally established deliberative processes. Therefore, the question to be asked is not whether NATGRID is legally or constitutionally valid, but whether it is important for Parliament to oversee the establishment of NATGRID. In October 2010, the Ministry of Personnel circulated an “Approach paper for a legislation on privacy”. The paper states: “Data protection can only be ensured under a formal legal system that prescribes the rights of the individuals and the remedies available against the organization that breaches these rights. It is imperative, if the aim is to create a regime where data is protected in this country, that a clear legislation is drafted that spells out the nature of the rights available to individuals and the consequences that an organization will suffer if it breaches these rights.” As the lines above exemplify, it is important for a robust democracy to codify rights and remedies when such rights may be potentially affected. The European Union and the USA, along with a host of other countries have comprehensive privacy laws, which also lay down conditions for access to databases, and the limitations of such use. The UIDAI was established as an executive authority, and still functions without statutory mandate. However, a Bill seeking to establish the body statutorily has been introduced, and its contents are being debated in the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance and the Bill has also been deliberated on by civil society at large. A similar approach is imperative in the case of NATGRID to uphold the sovereign electorate’s right to oversee institutions that may affect it in the future.
