Time Limit for Adjudication
THE TARC had observed,
"While the respective tax statutes provide timelines for disposal of cases, in the case of indirect taxes, this is often qualified by the words "where it is possible to do so". This qualification in effect nullifies the prescription of time limits for decision. If the intent of the tax statutes is to be fulfilled, the qualification should be removed and a realistic but mandatory time limit should be prescribed. The law must also prescribe the consequences of not adhering to the time limits and the officers should be made accountable for lapses. If not decided in time, it should be deemed to have been decided in favour of the taxpayer."
Income tax field officers were open to the idea but thought that the time lines should be set in such a way that they are normally achievable. The overall view within both the departments, however, was that the onus of delays in resolving of disputes beyond a reasonable period of time cannot be laid exclusively on the departments alone. The CBEC was apprehensive, citing reasons such as non-cooperation by the taxpayer which is beyond the control of the adjudicating authority. It further felt that the Ministry's present instructions to decide a case within 3 months of personal hearing were good enough on this issue. Some income tax field officers felt that, instead of setting general time lines for disposal, the reasons for non-disposal of cases within a reasonable period of time should be identified and addressed first. Some indicated it would encourage assessees to postpone submission until the very end and thereafter, the case would be automatically decided in his favour before any worthwhile enquiry could be made by the department for lack of time.
On the other hand, the TARC pointed out that experience reveals that departmental officers tend to postpone personal hearings, sometimes for frivolous reasons, to avoid passing adjudication orders within the prescribed time line. Officers also often get transferred after holding a personal hearing without backward accountability, which is a major lacuna in the Indian tax administration. Hence, the assessee has to undergo the entire process of appearing for a personal hearing again before the incumbent officer. These are systemic faults endemic to the department and need to be sorted out.