National Litigation Policy - Low value Appeals - Monetary limit - Board Instructions not retrospective

CBEC and CBDT can be excused for directing their Principal Chief Commissioners to rake up all the cases where the courts had given retrospectivity to the circulars prescribing commencement date for applying the national litigation policy. No doubt, such step was unnecessary, considering the fact that the stake involved in all these cases would be pittance. Even on merits, most if these case would probably, be dismissed by the high courts.

But, the cryptic judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Dhamija case cited by DDT, disappoints the litigants. Starting with the CJI, everyone in the judiciary is crying hoarse about pending litigation. But, the supreme court itself axes a judgment which helped weed out frivolous litigation of low stakes. Learned judges of the supreme court have not shown the same sagacity shown by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Ranka & Ranka case. Was it necessary for the supreme court to consider itself bound by the dates specified in the circulars of the two Boards? Was it not within the competence of the Apex Court to apply the circular to all cases heard by the Courts and Tribunals as on the date of hearing. What is so sacrosanct about the date of filing for the purpose of National Litigation Policy? The cryptic judgment in Suman Dhamija case does not show that the Apex Court applied its mind to these larger issues, while allowing the Revenue appeals.

This is a clear case where the Apex Court has missed the forest for the trees.

Gururaj B N 31/08/2015