Revenue Officers not able to give refunds because of targets - TARC feedback
THE TARC interacted with the Revenue Boards, Field Officers and officers associations for feedback.
Many officers indicated that they were in favour of giving appropriate and timely refunds but were unable to do so due to policy reasons arising from revenue targets. (DDT learns that recently a Commissioner of Central Excise shouted at an Assistant Commissioner for giving refund legally legitimately and rightly, but against the oral instructions of the Commissioner that no refund should be given. - In some Commissionerates they have stopped receiving refund claims from December 2014. December to March is a NO REFUND period)
There was a general resistance to the idea that private professionals should be inducted into the office of the Ombudsman, with some expressing the fear that such outsiders might bring in vested interests.
An important constraint expressed by many in relation to improving the quality of customer services was the woeful inadequacies in infrastructure, such as office accommodation of acceptable standards, poor furniture and a basic lack of amenities. Let alone space for facilities like lounges for visitors, very often officers and staff themselves were suffering from such inadequacies. Further, there was acute shortage of funds for augmentation of infrastructure and painful delays in the processing of proposals from field officers. This was voiced in virtually every interaction. Cadre Review has worsened the situation.
Career bureaucrats in general are fiercely protective of their turf. It was not surprising that TARC's recommendation to enable lateral entry of experts in key roles and specialised areas met with some resistance, perhaps because of the apprehension that the integration of the experts who enter the departments laterally at the decision making levels would shrink their own career prospects.
The CBEC did not agree that there should be a DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) for indirect taxes along the same lines as in the I-T Act. It felt that the DRP was not a workable solution in CBEC and that it would just add one more layer in the dispute resolution process.
The income tax as well as indirect tax field welcomed the idea that, on disposal of a case by the Supreme Court/High Court and if the judgment is accepted by the Department, instructions should be issued to all authorities to withdraw appeal in any pending case involving the same issue.
No comments were provided on the recommendation that refunds sanctioned on the indirect tax side should be paid along with the automatic application of interest as is done in the case of income tax and should not be based on demand by the taxpayers. As in the case of income tax and customs duty drawback, the refund and interest payment should be directly credited to the bank account of the taxpayer.