Litigation Loving Revenue - Chronicle of a Chronic Disease
1. AN order was passed by a Commissioner on 19.03.1998.
2. On appeal, the Tribunal by an order dated 23.06.1998 remanded the matter to the Commissioner.
3. The Commissioner on remand passed an order dated 07.11.1998, reaffirming his early order.
4. The assessee again appealed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal again remanded the matter to the Commissioner by an order dated 09/21.03.2001.
5. The Department appealed to the High Court against the above Tribunal order, which was rejected on merits.
6. The Commissioner again passed an order on 14.10.2005, ignoring the Tribunal's remand directions.
7. The assessee approached the Tribunal in appeal for the third time; the tribunal by an order dated 07 05 2014, again remanded the matter, but this time imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the department.
8. The Department was deeply aggrieved and took the matter in appeal to the High Court.
9. The High Court by an order dated 03 07 2014 () dismissed the Revenue appeal.
While remanding the matter for the third time, the Tribunal observed,
Since this appeal is the result of indisciplined and perverse analysis and conclusions recorded by the ld. Commissioner and has caused avoidable litigative trauma to the appellant and wastage of public resources in terms of time consumed by this Tribunal to deal with a clearly avoidable litigation, we allow the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the appellant.
While dismissing the Revenue appeal, the High Court observed,
In our view, the Tribunal has furnished adequate and cogent reasons for imposing costs. The Commissioner was, by the order of remand that had been passed by the Tribunal on 9 May 2001, required to make a specific determination. The Tribunal has observed that the Commissioner had failed to carry out the terms of the remand and had decided the case in an indisciplined and perverse manner. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal on the issue of costs, particularly when the Tribunal has furnished cogent reasons. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is dismissed.
What started in 1998 is still at the starting point after going through the Tribunal thrice and the High Court twice. Just imagine the amount of time and money wasted and the number of officers who have worked hard and were paid heavily by the taxpayer, to perpetuate this perverted litigation. And it is only the beginning.
Recently a case came up in the Tribunal in which the Commissioner on remand had held, "earlier adjudication order holds good and needs no interference" - that was the order that was set aside by the Tribunal!
In their anxiety to protect and preserve the cause of revenue by hasty, illegal and unfair adjudication, these senior officers of the Department, not only ruin the cause of revenue, but the very basis of adjudication and revenue collection.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in