No Fear of Vigilance - CBEC Tells Adjudicators
IN a recent letter to all the Chief Commissioners, the Director General Vigilance, CBEC (Who is now also a Member of CBEC)refers to instructions issued in 2010 () in terms of which the review committees were advised to undertake scrutiny of adjudication/appellate orders from vigilance angle as per the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of K K Dhawan ()
She emphasises that:
The adjudicating and appellate authorities are required to pass fair, judicious and legally sustainable speaking orders which can withstand judicial scrutinyat higher appellate fora.
Apprehensions have, however, been raised that the above instructions have created a 'fear of vigilance' amongst the field officers, due to which some of the adjudicating/appellate authorities are resorting to confirmation of demands through non-speaking orders/without following judicial discipline/non consideration of pleas put forth by the parties, etc. merely due to a fear of coming under vigilance scrutiny. Such unjust orders, besides attracting adversejudicial scrutiny, cause harassment to the trade and undermine the efforts of the Department inproviding a non-adversarial tax regime to taxpayers.
She notes that since 1997, only 18 adjudication orders have been taken up for scrutiny by the Directorate General of Vigilance. This indicates that on an average, only one case in a year i.e. 0.001% of the total quasi-judicial orders passed in the department have been taken up for vigilance scrutiny. The fear of vigilance action against adjudicating/ appellate authorities in respect of adjudication/ appeal orders, therefore, appears to be totally unfounded and misplaced.
She clarifies:
1. Adjudication and Appellate Orders are examined by Review Committees of Chief Commissioners or Commissioners comprehensively, including from the angle of legality and propriety, with a view to take a decision whether the orders are acceptable or to be appealed against in higher appellate fora.
2. Examination of orders from vigilance angle is also a part of this exercise.
3. An adjudication/ appellate order is not required to be referred by the Review Committee for further vigilance scrutiny merely on the ground of it being an anti-revenue order or having some legal infirmities (for which review and appellate remedy is available), unless there are genuine reasons to doubt the bonafides of the decision or where the order shows a conspicuous violation of the procedures involved or recklessness, etc., as per the criteria laid by Supreme Court in the K K Dhawan's judgment.
She expects that senior officers in the field, given their vast experience, would be able to distinguish between the orders warranting scrutiny from vigilance angle and those which do not.