Beware the Ides of March
COME March and the madness in Revenue Departments to recover arrears, by means fair or foul, reach unimaginable levels. Last year, armed with the CBEC's draconian Circular dated 01/01/2013, the field officers drove the assessees frantically to the various Benches of the High Courts and CESTAT.
The Mumbai High Court had given a landmark order in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India, - and the CESTAT had in a suomoto order in 2013-TIOL-553-CESTAT-BANG restrained the Department from initiating recovery proceedings when the stay application is pending in the CESTAT.
It was believed that the draconian Circular is no more valid in view of the Order of the Bombay High Court (and eight other High Courts) and the suomoto order of the Tribunal in 2013-TIOL-553-CESTAT-BANG .In fact the Mysore Chief Commissioner had clarified in a RAC meeting that, the Board has decided to accept the Tribunal suomotu order No.25453/2013 dated 02/04/2013 under rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, with respect to the CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013 dated 01/01/2013.
But it seems the Circular is raising its ugly head again in some pockets of the country.
Recently even while the Stay application was pending in the CESTAT and even listed for hearing, the Department went ahead with recovery proceedings and the assessee had to approach the High Court.
The High Court took note of the Bombay High Court 2013 order in the Larsen & Toubro case () wherein it was held,
"For the reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the provisions contained in the impugned circular dated 1 January 2013 mandating the initiation of recovery proceedings thirty days after the filing of an appeal, if no stay is granted, cannot be applied to an assessee who has filed an application for stay, which has remained pending for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Where however, an application for stay has remained pending for more than a reasonable period, for reasons having a bearing on the default or the improper conduct of an assessee, recovery proceedings can well be initiated as explained in the earlier part of the judgment."
The Court was also informed that the same view has been taken by as many as eight High Courts.
The High Court requested CESTAT to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks and ordered that in the meantime, no coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the demand will be taken .
Why should the Department harass the assessees like this and drive them to High Courts and Tribunals enriching the lawyers in the process?
Is the Government meant only for making the peoples' lives miserable including those of the taxpayers? Actually in this election year, who is really bothered about revenue targets? Overanxious revenue officers used to annual arm-twisting are only continuing with a treacherous tradition.
And what happened to direction of the Karnataka High Court () directing the Union of India to constitute additional Benches of CESTAT for early disposal of the Stay applications. See also 14.04.2013 & 2146 11.07.2013.