Addl Commissioner passes Order on 31.1.2011 relying on SC decision dated 10.2.2011!!! - HC remands
THE brilliance in fraud by Revenue officers knows no limits.
An Additional Commissioner passed an order on 31.1.2011. In this he referred to an order of the Supreme Court in delivered on 10.2.2011 - that is ten whole days after he delivered his order! How did the Additional Commissioner know on 31.1.2011 about an order that would be delivered by the Supreme Court ten days later? No marks for guessing! This is a regular practice with revenue officers. An order dated 31st of the month means that the order was dated that day to include that order in that month's quota - the actual order could be delivered any time after that. In this case, the only slip was that the learned Adjudicating Authority did not bother to check the date of the Supreme Court Order.
In this case, the assessee approached the High Court which observed, "there appears to be an error apparent on the face of the records, as the authority could not have relied upon a Supreme Court decision which has not been pronounced on the date when the impugned order was passed by the authority." The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for fresh adjudication.
You know the result of the re-adjudication!
The Commissioner, Chief Commissioner and the Board should find out from the Additional Commissioner as to how he could rely on a Supreme Court judgement delivered after his order and if there is any secret way of knowing the future orders of the Supreme Court, this should be circulated among all the adjudicating authorities.