First of all a windfall tax is to be levied when a windfall occurs.Has a windfall occured?the answer is yes.It is noone's case that such a tax shd be levied always.So the USA withdrawal later example is meaningless. Secondly it is the argued that IT companies made a windfall and were not levied a windfall tax.But IT companies were not given a common propert resource like petroleum which belongs tto the Govt and the people. Thirdly contractual obligations are cited.You gave exploration rights with profit sharing on the assumption of certain oil prices.Upto 40 $ per Barrel this is fine.But beyond this it is a gross windfall.To argue that Govt gets a share via profit sharing is obtuse.You are the owner and you wish to be a beggar. Fourthly to cite capital costs for exploration as falling on the company,is plain ridiculous.You want a return on capital of 25% not 500%.This argument is plain ridiculuous.Who ever thought of this order of price increase? Fifthly the argument that WPT will discourage long term investment reveals a callous pro business view.We are talking of a crisis caused by the oil shock and the pain.Is it wrong to expect those who made such profits to share a bit of the pain.Noone is saying don't have profits but do not cash in on a windfall. The Ministry arguing the case against in this manner is a slap in the face of the common man.
