News Update

Import Prohibition - Reference to the Patents Act, 1970 omitted from notification 51/2010-Cus(NT)Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 amendedImport of Milk and Milk Products from China - import prohibition extended till 23.12.2018I-T - Tax deducted at source on income of charitable trust cannot be treated as taxable income: ITATGST - Howrah Commissionerate detects Rs 43 Crore tax evasion through fake invoicesGeM - Transactions worth Rs 8700 Crore done in short time, says PMRanchi NCB seizes 400 kg ganja from truck in Bokaro Steel CityIndia to make Chabahar Port operation by 2019: GadkariST - For any inaction on part of Revenue to submit Final Verification Report, petitioners cannot be made to suffer - matter remanded to Settlement Commission: High CourtGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part III (See 'TOG INSIGHT')I-T - Application of fund for benefit of earthquake victims and its communication to donee before stipulated date, is sufficient for charitable trust to avail benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5C): HCPanama Papers - Leak-I - Out of 426 only 76 cases found actionable: GovtST - Taxability is not determined by section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 but by coverage in section 65: CESTATCIC decides proceedings not to abate even if complainant diesGovt sets up Panel to update Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental & Economic Responsibilities of Business12 lakh pax electric cars sold in 2017; up by 58% from 2016: UNCommerce Department to get new homeCentre invites views on draft CSR guidelinesCanada passes bill to legalise use of marijuana from Oct 17, 2018Govt appoints Mr M K Sinha as new Joint Secy - TRU-IIDrive Against Shell Companies - A cul-de-sac!Liquor licences: Undoubtedly Taxable before as well as after GST Roll outMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains Bonds
 
Commissioner and his officials are playing blame game - this must be immediately stopped: High Court

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 17, 2017: IN the case of ICICI Reality, the Bombay High Court in a scathing order [2017-TIOL-84-HC-MUM-CX] while dismissing the appeal (for the delay of 776 days) and the notice of motion observed –

+ Waking up after more than two and half years after such a dismissal and seeking restoration of the appeal would not be fair and proper. It is clear that there is no cause shown, much less some change in the panel of advocates. No details are provided and a vague statement is made in the affidavit-in-support.

+ It is noticed on several occasions by this Court that the advocates employ registered clerks who keep track of such matters and which remain pending in the Registry for compliance with the procedural rules.

+ The Revenue/Department has not learnt its lessons and though being the largest litigant, has not engaged the services of court clerks, much less registered court clerks. Therefore, those advocates who are engaged by the Revenue on more occasions than one have not been informed about lack of the procedural compliances.

+ The advocates who are panel advocates also do not have their own paraphernalia including clerks. We do not think that the High Court should condone such lapses and utter negligence on the part of the Revenue officials and their advocates.

It seems more was on its way.

In the present set of appeals filed in the year 2014 by CCE, Pune-III , notices of motions were filed seeking time to remove the office objections.

The High Court remarked –

++ While filing a cryptic affidavit in support, initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blamegame. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates. They are of the opinion that their Advocates ought to inform them and at every stage of the matter, particularly as to which office objections have to be complied with or are to be removed. If no such communication is made by the Advocates, then the Commissioner feels that he and his officers are not at fault.

++ We are sorry to say that this is not what was expected from the Commissioner of Service Tax. If the officers are unaware of legal procedures, then, they have to be in touch with their Advocates and periodically. They cannot expect that the Advocate himself comes to their office and apprise them as to what further has to be done after the filing of an Appeal. Earliest this impression is removed from their mind as it is the duty of the officers to follow up the case, then, the better it would be for our system. This blamegame must be immediately stopped. We are expecting that this game will not be played further and as assured … in the light of a circular which is issued.

++ There is a Legal Coordination Cell, Pune Zone and it would hereafter take care in terms of its Office Order dated 10.01.2017 and which has been circulated to all concerned. We would expect better coordination which was completely lacking earlier. We would also appreciate that the Revenue officials communicate with their Advocates periodically or rather regularly apprise themselves of the stages in which their Appeals have to go through.

Accepting the explanation placed on the additional affidavit filed "on purely and in larger public interest", both the motions were allowed and four weeks time was granted to remove all office objections.

No costs were imposed since the counsels for the Revenue had "taken pains" to apprise the Commissionerate of all the lapses pointed out.

(See 2017-TIOL-333-HC-MUM-ST)


POST YOUR COMMENTS