Departmental appeals – an empty formality?
Today, we are carrying a Supreme Court order where the Chief Commissioner of Customs has been directed to enquire as to who was responsible for the inordinate delay of 864 days in filing an SLP before the Apex Court. The conviction of a Tanzanian National was set aside by the High Court and the department took the case to the Supreme Court – after 864 days. Assume that the Supreme Court quashes the High Court order. What happens? The Tanzanian must have happily gone back to his country. Can the Customs bring him back? If so, at what cost? Is it all necessary? How are they going to trace him? If the appeal could not be filed for more than two years, what was the need to file it and get the rap from the Apex Court? The Supreme Court now wants to find out who was responsible for the delay. But should not the Government find out who was responsible for fighting this already lost battle? After 864 days they should have realized that there was no point in filing an SLP.
The only important and original work in the department is causing litigation or defending in litigation and that is given the least importance. The last time any importance is given to a case is at the time of drafting the Show Cause Notice; after that the case just drifts along and ultimately reaches the Apex Court, by which time it is an orphan and nobody really comes forward even to adopt it. If a case is worth being taken to the Supreme Court, it is certainly worth being well taken care of – at the highest levels. But the protocol for a visiting dignitary is far more important than a case pending in Supreme Court!
In this particular case, the Supreme Court has observed that there is more than what meets the eye and that matter was deliberately delayed by interested persons in the Department. Actually it may only be a case of lethargy and not interest – it may be lack of interest! As the Supreme Court had observed in this case, this is not the first time that the Supreme Court has come across such cases. More than five years ago, in Commissioner vs Mathew Kurian, the Supreme Court observed,
cases are invariably filed with enormous unexplained/casually explained delay. This state of affairs is continuing for quite some years. We wish to express our anguish that in spite of the Court pointing out the haphazard way of filing application for condoning delay, no improvement is forthcoming. Ultimately it is the Revenue that suffers as a result of dismissal of cases on the ground of delay. We hope that at least in future the appeals are filed in time and if there is any delay, it is explained properly.
Obviously nothing has changed.