KOTTAYAM: Unfazed by the allegations of tax evasion and illegal landfilling, Congress legislator Mathew Kuzhalnadan on Saturday launched a further offensive at Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena Vijayan. Addressing media persons at Kottayam DCC office, the Muvattupuzha MLA alleged that Veena received more money from the black sand mining firm Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL), in addition to the Rs 1.72 crore mentioned by the Interim Board for Settlement under the Central Board of Taxes.
According to him, CMRL transferred Rs 42.48 lakh to Veena’s software company, Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd, during the period from 2017 to 2019. “Exalogic paid Rs 6.48 lakh as GST for this payment. This apart, Exalogic also received an amount of `39 lakh from a company owned by the wife of CMRL managing director. These two payments are over and above the amount mentioned in the Interim Settlement Board,” he said.
Kuzhalnadan also challenged the CPM leadership to release documents if Veena had paid GST for Rs 1.72 crore received from CMRL. “The CPM claimed that Veena’s company received `1.72 crore as part of a transparent business deal between two companies. Since CMRL is in Kerala and Exalogic is in Karnataka, IGST should be paid at a rate of 18% for the deal. I challenge CPM leaders to release documents regarding Kerala government receiving `30.96 lakh as IGST in this deal,” Kuzhalnadan said.
Kuzhalnadan also sent an e-mail to Finance Minister K N Balagopal requesting to disclose details in this regard. He alleged that CPM has become a security agency firm of Veena’s company and CPM state secretary M V Govindan has been downgraded as its chief security officer.
PLEA AGAINST KUZHALNADAN BEFORE BAR COUNCIL
Kochi: Ernakulam Court Unit of All India Lawyers Union (AILU) secretary Adv C K Sajeev has approached the Bar Council of Kerala seeking action against Adv Mathew Kuzhalnadan, MLA, for running a resort in Chinnakanal violating the rules of the Bar Council of India. Rule 47 provides that an advocate shall not personally engage in any business. Hence, the complainant sought an action against the MLA for professional misconduct.