Era of judicial activism or of adventurism is over, it's now Judicial Terrorism? - CC's rejoinder
ON April 13th, we had carried a story - CESTAT has power to grant stay beyond 180 days - Assistant Commissioner rules that CESTAT has erred and High Court has no jurisdiction – Cost of Rs. One Lakh imposed on the officer.
The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow, Mr. B R Tripathi sent us a very strong (to put it mildly) rejoinder and wanted us to publish it.
The Assistant Commissioner had ordered that “the Tribunal had erred in passing the stay order and the High Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the writ petition”.
The High Court noted that, “The aforesaid averments are contemptuous in nature. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli has no authority to say that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and this Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order.”
Instead of taking a contempt proceeding against the officer concerned, the High Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rupees one lac on the respondent-officer.
Now the Chief Commissioner is highly aggrieved by the High Court order and here are some snippets from his agitated rejoinder.
++ in interest of maintaining judicial discipline by all concerned (i.e. not only by revenue authority), it had become now imperative that a re-joinders should be issued for wider coverage & publication, so that real crux comes out.
++ it is not understood, what warrants drastic modification of an order of the Tribunal based on fact of a case (and not on a question of law)
++ The exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh ought to have been imposed after issuing notice to that effect to Chief Commissioner and Commissioner on whose written directions the Assistant Commissioner had issued the notice for recovery.
++ Imposing a cost of Rs. 1 lakhs on a Government servant who was engaged in discharge of statutory duty ought not have been played like a toy / pistol. It came out to be lethal.
++ When the department is collecting a revenue of Rs. 2 lacs 50 thousands Crores in a year, Rs. 1 lac is a petty amount. Exemplary cost imposed on Asstt. Commissioner ought to have been at least Rs. 10 crores.
++ The revenue collected by Asstt. Commissioner goes to consolidated fund of India, it will be drawn out of that, where is question of black & white ? Why from his pocket. There was no misconduct, no malafide, nothing beyond jurisdiction, nothing unethical, not in defiance of any specific order, direction by name. Why a cost be imposed on him or on department?
++ Therefore, the imposing of a cost of Rs.1 lac was not justified and was not in good taste.
++ it was unwarranted on part of the Hon'ble High Court to entertain such WP and on raising the issues of jurisdiction and authority, got annoyed and hence imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondent.
++ In fact entertaining the WP, modification of interim order of the Tribunal dated 17th August, 2005, adversely affecting the revenue interest by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, within a span of one month itself was less than proper.
++ It was expected by the leading and renowned Hon'ble High Court of the country that it will address the core issue and will pronounce the landmark judgment (like unseating of the Prime Minister of the country in 1977 from the membership of Lok Sabha of Raebareli constituency
++ But with his deep - pocket, Galaxy (assessee) was in a position to shop for (appropriate?) jurisdiction.
++ With utmost regard to higher judiciary of the country, somehow of late it is being perceived by the citizenry & bureaucracy of the country that era of judicial activism or of adventurism is over - now it had entered in the era of judicial terrorism.
Stunned as we are with his letter, he wants us to give it wide publicity and declares, “I do take full responsibility about what had been written herein by me.”
Click here for the full rejoinder. TIOL does not in any way support, subscribe to or associates with his views. We are obliged to carry it as it is a rejoinder to one of our reports.