Why very few cases go to Settlement Commission?
THE foremost reason is that there is nothing to settle. Most of the Show Cause Notices are so pathetically illegal, baseless and highly inflated that they will not survive beyond the Tribunal. So, nobody is persuaded to go the Settlement Commission.
Even in the few cases that actually go to the Commission, the Departmental officers in the Commission behave as if they are just adjudicating another case.
The Board should impress upon all its officers starting with Members of the Commission that the Commission is more of a Panchayat to settle a dispute and not a court to adjudicate a case. The applicant in the Settlement Commission has already confirmed that he has not paid the tax and he has come to the Commission to make good the omission. He should not be treated as a criminal. After he is ready to pay (or paid) the admitted tax due, which would have come to the State kitty, if at all, after ten years.
Recently a former vice-chairman of the Settlement Commission told me that it takes about six months for a new Member to realise that he is no more an adjudicator or a tax collector and a Member stays in the Commission for hardly two years.
The proceedings of the Commission should be made more informal. The awe-inspiring courtroom setting should go. Even lawyers should be more informally dressed and not in their usual court attire. In the District Courts when they organise Lok Adalats, the Judge does not sit on the elevated pulpit; removes his coat, comes down and sits across the table along with the litigants. The idea is to provide a less formal and more congenial atmosphere to the parties, which encourages them to freely deliberate at such Lok Adalats thereby increasing the possibility of settlements. The Department should not routinely contest every application for settlement. I know a Commissioner who threatened an Assistant Commissioner (who represented for the department before the Settlement Commission) with a charge sheet for conceding a point before the Commission. The Department should also send fairly senior officers who should be authorised to take decisions.
This is an incident that happened in a Settlement Commission Bench.
The commission was convinced that the assessee had a fair case and he had truthfully admitted his liability. The Bench asked the departmental representative (a Superintendent) whether he would agree. He said, "No". "But why?", asked the Commission. "I have been asked to oppose settlement", was his humble reply. The Bench then took a break and asked the Superintendent to contact his Commissioner and come back with his decision. When the Member asked the Superintendent if he was ready with the Commissioner's view, he was told that the Superintendent tried to contact his Commissioner and was told that the Commissioner was having his lunch (to be followed by a siesta) and was not to be disturbed for the next two hours. And there was no way to get to the Commissioner. The Member who was a former Chief Commissioner said, "I will connect you to your Commissioner." So, he called up the Commissioner and asked him to speak to the Superintendent. After five minutes everybody assembled in the court and the Member asked the Superintendent, "what is your decision?" "My Commissioner has not agreed for settlement sir; he says the whole amount demanded in the Show Cause Notice should be confirmed." (Commissioners are used to that).