TDP national spokesman K. Pattabhi Ram expressed concern that the YSRCP Government and the CID hatched a pre-planned conspiracy to sabotage the AP-Siemens skill development project out of sheer political vendetta.
Pattabhi Ram said that the CID was making a false allegation that Rs. 241 Cr fund of the Siemens project was diverted and transferred to shell companies. Alarmingly, the CID was contradicting its own statements without any rhyme and reason.
Addressing a press conference here, the TDP leader pointed out that the CID itself mentioned in its remand report that the Rs. 241 Cr was returned and deposited into the account of the Design Tech company. At the same time, the CID officials were claiming there was no trace of this money. All these bogus allegations were only aimed to arrest an honest professional like Ghanta Subba Rao who stood for values and morals all his life.
Pattabhi said that the Director General of Goods and Services (DGGS) identified that the Design Tech evaded a certain amount of tax. As a result, a case was registered. It was found that the Design Tech evaded the GST payment to get tax refunds to the tune of Rs. 7 Cr. The DGGS did not mention anywhere that the Rs. 241 Cr was diverted or transferred to shell companies.
The TDP leader pointed out that many companies in the country would resort to tax evasion and eventually face the resultant proceedings. The Rs. 241 Cr was transferred back to the Design Tech but not to the accounts of Ghanta Subba Rao or K. Lakshminarayana. This was as per the claims of the CID reports only. But still, the same CID was making arrests in the name of the Rs. 241 Cr fraud.
Pattabhi said that the CID accused the Siemens and the Design Tech companies of taking away the funds without supplying the items, tools and implements to the skill development centres. How could the CID officials say this without conducting the physical verification at the colleges where the skill development centres were set up.
The TDP leader termed it as unfortunate that the CID was misinterpreting the forensic report of Sarath and Associates, who clearly said that they did take out physical verification anywhere in the State.
Interestingly, Sarath and Associates said in its audit report that they did not do physical verification since the Government asked it not to do so. Why did the Government give such instructions?
