Lucknow Chief Commissioner's rejoinder on our story – mixed reactions
THE Lucknow Chief Commissioner has sent shock waves across the country with his rather irreverent comments about the High Court judgement, which we had carried on Friday. Apart from the few comments we carried in the Message Board, we received several calls and messages – rather strong ones both for and against the Chief Commissioner.
Anu Nair angrily told us, “Carrying of inflammatory and derogatory articles/reports/views is never expected from a Taxation website. I request you to delete the entire matter immediately. Or at least make my views appear in your next DDT !”
Some of her views:
++ Incidentally, the rejoinder gives the readers the impression that the C.C has a definite grudge against the Hon'ble Judge Shri Rajes Kumar and he (CC) has also cast aspersions on the integrity of the Hon'ble Judge who is seen to hold office in the same Court for more than 5 years!
++ The CBEC (if it has read this rejoinder) should immediately remove the Chief Commissioner from his present posting and make him sit idle. Sorry, since an idle mind is a devil's workshop, the CC should be made in-charge of some welfare department or land and housing.
++ The CC seems to have spent many sleepless nights when the news item was reported and should have finally found peace since the “rejoinder” has been published today by Taxindia.
++ The quality of drafting leaves much to be desired – right from the innumerable grammatical and typo mistakes and insertion of inconsequential paragraphs in the “rejoinder” like the ones concerning section 35A(3) amendment, reference to the Dunlop India decision of SC, reference to unseating of the PM of the country in 1977 etc., the Chief Commissioner has exposed himself and some of his Assistant Commissioners whose case he seems to advocate through the rejoinder.
++ Admittedly, the CC fails to tell us as to why his department had not moved the Apex Court against the Allahabad HC decision dated 20.09.2005 of one and a half page reducing the pre-deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore ordered by the CESTAT to Rs.20 lakhs if he thinks that the department's case was so strong.
++ The CC can also very well expect a defamation suit filed by the assessee for the following sentence – “But with his deep-pocket, Galaxy was in a position to shop for (appropriate?) jurisdiction.”
++ Vituperative language was not called for – the CC seems to have become too emotional – the heart should not have ruled his mind!
++ Terming the order of the Hon'ble HC as judicial terrorism is the last nail in the coffin.
++ Although the Chief Commissioner has undertaken full responsibility for this outburst, my humble suggestion is that the Chief Commissioner should immediately find an escape route lest he wants to lose his job – say he was out of his mind and needs to attend a Vipassana course!
++ I would be thrilled to know the outcome of this “rejoinder”.
An assessee wrote in
++ It should not be forgotten that any officer acting as judiciary authority should maintain dignity and decorum of his post. He should not overstep his jurisdiction by offering unwanted, uncalled for and unreasonable observations. Statutory provisions do not give carte blanche to A.C. to act in haphazard way.
The former Governor of Himachal and Karnataka, Rama Devi in an interview with me for TIOL six years ago, said, “Supreme Court is right not necessarily because it is right but because it is the final authority and once that final authority decides something we are expected to follow that.”
We have made it very clear that we don't subscribe to or support the Chief Commissioner's views. We strongly believe in judicial discipline and we would expect even a Commissioner's (Appeals) decision to be scrupulously followed by the lower officers and the Department should not be seen flouting the decisions of higher appellate authorities like Tribunals and High Courts. Be you ever so high, yet the law is above you.
But interestingly the Chief Commissioner's views have many takers.
Incidentally I may be allowed the indulgence of relating a personal experience. Eight years ago I wrote an article for TIOL - "Is there any nexus between Central Excise and Sex Education?".
The Chief Commissioner who was then a Commissioner wrote to me, “I have an occasion to go through the text produced by you “Is there any nexus between Central Excise and Sex Education” which came to me through Internet on the wave length of Taxindiaonline.com, dated 9 th September, 2002.
Of course, a brilliant, encouraging and amusing revelations on your part. Some of us are very proud of such officers like you who call a spade a spade for informing and educating the big brother officers in the Department
.” He also marked a copy of his letter to me to his officers with a remark, “Copy to the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise [Prev./Tech/Audit]/Joint Commissioner of Customs with a copy of “Internet mail” for reading and for doing all things which may dispel the doubts hovering in the minds of junior officers as if the senior officers do not know their subject and are too ignorant to be tolerated.”