Compulsive Litigation - Should Revenue Work Overtime to Feed Consultants?
TODAY our CobWeb column deals with the Revenue Departments' urge for litigation, especially in administrative matters. Their ligation promotion is not certainly limited to administrative issues, but is actually more so in technical matters.
The other day, a Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise told me that his executive colleagues are treating him as a virtual outcaste because he is passing orders in favour of the assessee. I told him that no assessee or lawyer expects any justice from any of the Departmental officers and they simply pass through these stages with a hope of getting some justice in the Tribunal. And for a lawyer, a favourable order at any stage before the Tribunal is a loss as he will lose the fee at appellate stages. But the Department religiously ensures that he doesn't lose it. Every order favourable to the assessee is invariably taken at least up to the Tribunal. So these officers spend a lot of time to ensure that the lawyers are kept well fed. There was a time when the Tribunal's orders were routinely accepted, but now the Department has appointed a large number of counsels in the High Court and to keep them gainfully employed, almost all cases are taken to the High Court.
The Government with good intentions had brought in a law that the decision to appeal or not has to be taken by a Committee of Commissioners or Chief Commissioners. But the field is notorious for defying with impunity all forward looking policies of the Boards, the Government and Parliament. The Committees of Commissioners and Chief Commissioners are a big farce – there is no meeting; One Commissioner or Chief Commissioner takes a decision and the other Commissioner or Chief Commissioner simply endorses it! And litigation continues merrily.
And strangely while a decision to appeal to the Tribunal has to be taken by a Committee of Commissioners or Chief Commissioners, the decision to approach the High Court can be taken by a single Commissioner!
The only way litigation can be curbed is to provide in the statute that the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner who want to appeal should bear the cost of appeal and they should be paid double the expenditure if they win in the Tribunal or High Court, but will lose the money if they lose the case. They should be asked to pass an order why they have not chosen to appeal – you will see some of the best literature!
It is shameful to see Departmental officers telling assessees and consultants – “you will win in the Tribunal, but I cannot give the relief” They all pretend to be afraid of vigilance.
Why can't our officers be trained to pass judicial and fair orders? The effort should start from the Academies and senior officers should be a role model rather than pathetic timid promoters of litigation!