AND THE CBDT REACTS
! In its instructions to the field, the CBDT directs the Principal Chief Commissioners that:
1. They should identify all the cases in their jurisdiction, where jurisdictional High Courts/ITATs have dismissed departmental appeals after applying the Instruction governing monetary limit retrospectively and without adjudicating the issue on merit.
2. In identified appropriate cases, Review Petitions/Miscellaneous applications may immediately be moved in consultation with Sr. Standing/Standing Counsels.
3. All Sr. Standing Counsels/Standing Counsels be requested to bring the impugned judgment to the notice of High Court/ITAT, in appropriate cases, so that in pending cases/appeals, the ratio and intent of the judgement may be applied.
In the name of National Litigation Policy and avoiding litigation on small matters, they are further increasing litigation at all levels and took this simple matter all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the Ranka case, the Karnataka High Court had made some important observations which should have shamed the Revenue Departments into an anti-appeal mode, but when it comes to litigation, the Revenue will not spare any stone...
The Karnataka High Court observed,
The Government has formulated the National Litigation Policy with a view to ensure conduct of responsible litigation by the Central Government and urges every State Government to evolve similar policies. Its aim is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. Efficient litigant means ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered with. The litigation should not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy, "that matters should be left to the Courts for ultimate decision", has to be discarded. The easy approach, "Let the Court decide," must be eschewed and condemned. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce Government litigation in courts so that valuable Court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases, so as to achieve the Goal in the National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years .
It is our experience that in most of the cases, the levy of tax is made by placing such interpretation on the provision of the Act, so as to defeat the very object of those provisions. The Parliament with the best of intention, as incentive to trade and industry, has extended several benefits under the Act. Without properly appreciating the context and the object with which those provisions are enacted, the department has interpreted those provisions preventing those, benefits reaching the persons to whom it was intended. In most of the cases, the Tribunal has come to the rescue of those assessee, has interpreted those provisions in proper perspective and have extended the benefit to the assessee. It is against those orders, most of the appeals are filed mechanically as compulsive litigation without any sense of responsibility. It is our experience that most of the appeals which are filed by the Revenue are frivolous and vexatious. The majority of the appeals are filed with the sole object of leaving it to the Courts for ultimate decision. The approach is, 'let the Court decide'. The authority who decides to prefer the appeal is not prepared to take the responsibility. There is an attempt to save their skin, so that tomorrow they are not held responsible in any manner. It is this approach, which is to be eschewed and condemned, as stated in the National Litigation Policy.
Maybe now CBEC will follow with their own version of this circular.
CBDT F.No. 279/Misc/142/2007-ITJ., Dated August 27, 2015