New Delhi, Sep 17 (IANS) : Congress MPs on Thursday expressed concern over the recently announced 0.4 per cent Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on certain Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions above Rs 2,000, claiming that the Parliament Standing Committee on Finance had not discussed the proposal.
The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) has announced a 0.4 per cent charge that, according to the Congress MP, most merchants will have to pay to banks and payment processors on UPI payments received above Rs 2,000 per transaction.
Taking to X, Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said the proposed UPI charge had not been discussed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance and claimed that the Department of Finance had not placed any specific proposal concerning a UPI tax before the panel when its representatives met committee members.
“The Parliament Standing Committee on Finance has not discussed the UPI tax proposal that the Modi government has recently announced. The Department of Finance did not have any specific proposal on UPI tax when they met the members of the Finance Committee,” Gogoi said.
He further claimed that members of the committee had raised questions over the need for MDR, but that government representatives had not provided specific or “satisfactory answers” during the discussions.
“I reiterate that the recent UPI tax policies will hurt the small Indian merchants, vendors, entrepreneurs and help major American corporations,” he added.
The five Congress MPs who were part of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance included former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, Manish Tewari, Gaurav Gogoi, Kishori Lal and K. Gopinath.
Backing Gogoi’s contention, Congress MP Manish Tewari said that the proceedings of Parliamentary Standing Committees were privileged and should not, according to him, be used for political point-scoring.
“It is unfortunate that proceedings of Parliamentary Standing Committees that are supposed to be privileged are now sought to be used by the government to score brownie points,” Tewari said.
Tewari also supported Gogoi’s claim that the committee had not been presented with a specific proposal concerning the latest MDR on UPI transactions, including details of the proposed rate and exemptions.
He further said that concerns had also been raised by committee members regarding the broader principle and rationale behind the introduction of MDR.
“Even on the principle or conceptual basis of MDR, as my colleague Gaurav Gogoi points out, concerns were raised by members with regard to its need, efficacy etc. over the course of various sittings of the Committee,” Tewari further mentioned.
Tewari also objected to any claim that the proposed measure had received support from some members of the committee, saying such a description would not accurately reflect the confidential nature of parliamentary committee proceedings.
“To claim that a particular measure was supported by ‘certain members’ of the committee is an inaccurate and fallacious characterisation of the confidential proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee,” he added.
