How the Judicial System is clogged with irreverent litigation - Appalling Orders by Appellate Commissioners
MADAM Chairperson, your concern about not being consulted on GST is eminently justified, but do you know how your officers mock at the judicial system and cause immense loss to the Government as well as the trade?
Today I bring to your notice two appalling orders by two appellate Commissioners.
Discretion to condone the delay by appellate Commissioner is not the personal discretion of the Commissioner; it is the discretion of the law:
An assessee filed an appeal with the Commissioner (A) with a delay of 29 days, but within condonable discretion of the Commissioner. Ground for delay was sickness of Proprietor's wife. Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that no specific role of the proprietor's wife is observed in the day-to-day affairs of the firm and that nothing was brought on record to show that illness of the wife had affected the business of the appellant.
The assessee had to go in appeal to the CESTAT. The Tribunal observed, "this is an extremely arbitrary exercise of discretion. Condonation of delay particularly in the circumstances pleaded by the appellant should be liberally considered. It is perverse for the learned appellate Commissioner to hold that care of a spouse and the need for her attention is not a relevant criterion. The discretion to condone the delay authorised to the appellate Commissioner is not the personal discretion of the Commissioner; it is the discretion of the law and should be exercised appropriately as dictates of law require. The order is whimsical inviting invalidation and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals)"
Now whose interests the Commissioner (Appeals) was catering to? What does he lose by condoning the delay? In any case he would have most probably dismissed the appeal. Because he has exercised his discretion arbitrarily, the assessee had to hire lawyers, go to the Tribunal and precious time of the Tribunal was wasted. Even a lot of time and money of the Department must have been wasted. Does this action in any way improve revenue collection?
Please see
Appellate Commissioner granted 15 days time to Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate - Department appeals to CESTAT:
In this case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) remanded a case to the Adjudicating Authority - but granted 15 days time to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the case.
The Department is in appeal with a Stay application as the adjudicating authority is not able to adjudicate the case within 15 days as he is pre-occupied with several adjudication assignments. The Tribunal orders that the embargo of 15 days imposed by ld. commissioner (Appeals) is lifted in this case and ld. Adjudicating Authority shall dispose the matter within three months from the receipt of this order issuing notice of hearing to the respondent.
The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) must have worked as an adjudicating authority before becoming Commissioner (Appeals) and he pretty well knows the difficulty in adjudicating the case within 15 days. Why should he fix a time limit of 15 days?
And the adjudicating authority could have also with a little effort passed the order within those 15 days instead of appealing to the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed his order in November 2013 and the Tribunal gave three months time in July 2014 - that means the case will be adjudicated one year after the learned Commissioner (Appeals) fixed a limit of 15 days!
Please see
Revenue is too serious a matter to be entrusted to our Revenue Officers.