Committee of Commissioners – No remote review – sit together and decide
The above case had other interesting aspects. Our bureaucracy is determined to frustrate any progressive actions of the government and Parliament. Why was it made mandatory for a Committee of Commissioners to review an order? Obviously to ensure that frivolous appeals are not filed as two officers are more prone to a rational decision than one! But whatever law you make, the good bureaucracy will find a way to wriggle out of it.
How does the Committee function? We tried to find out. There are two situations:-
1. When both the Commissioners/Chief Commissioner are in the same city
2. When they are in different cities.
Case1: Both the Commissioners are in the same station. The order of the Commissioner goes to the Tribunal section where an inspector decides whether the order is to be appealed against. It goes through Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, and reaches the Commissioner who all sign on the note sheet. Then the file goes to the other Commissioner member of the Committee who also signs it and Lo! And behold! The Committee has taken a decision. The Jurisdictional Commissioner signs a review order and directs an Assistant Commissioner to file an appeal and the appeal is filed in the Tribunal.
Case 2:- The Commissioners are in different stations and they have decided that they are bored with trips to the other station. So the order is sent to the second member of the Committee and he gives his opinion. Then the file is put up to the jurisdictional Commissioner who gives his opinion and the appeal is filed!
Now the Tribunal has called a halt to this patent and flagrant violation of the legislative intent.
In this case the Commissioner,Salem, a member of the Committee sitting in Salem on 30.1.2006 decided that appeal has to be filed. Two days later on 1.2.2006, the Commissioner, Trichy acting as Commissioner, Coimbatoredecidedthat no appeal needs to be filed. Was this what Parliament meant by a Committee of Commissioners?
The Tribunal observed, The law-makers expected the members of the Review Committee to sit together, examine the case records, deliberate, discuss and converge to a view on the question whether the appellate Commissioner's order was legal or proper.
The Tribunal found that the decision taken by the Commissioner (Salem) on 30.1.2006 to file appeal against the appellate Commissioner's order or the opposite decision taken on 1.2.2006 by the other member of the Committee cannot be accepted as decision of the Review Committee.
Review is not an empty formality but a solemn responsibility and please don’t frustrate it.
The CESTAT has, over the years, grown into a highly respected judicial organisation and decisions such as this would certainly enhance its prestige. The CESTAT is the hope in the Pandora’s Box in a system that is in shambles.