TIOL-DDT 2419
20.08.2014
Wednesday

THIS is the story of a young irreverent IRS officer who has no respect for the Law or the institutions or the courts. He got into the IRS in 2009 and that must have given him the feeling that he has achieved the ultimate and no force on Earth is above him.

He recently appeared in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Customs before the Central Information Commissioner. The Central Information Commissioner is 62 years old, has about 40 years' experience in the field of law, was a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Law; was the Chairman of an Appellate Tribunal; was the Nodal Officer for the VI Pay Commission which gave the babus a huge salary hike; was the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry of Law for over six years. And as a Central Information Commissioner now, he gets a salary higher than that of Chairman of the CBEC, under whom our overrated Deputy Commissioner is the lowest Group A Officer.

The highly learned DC of Customs appeared before the CIC in an appeal filed by a victim who could not get information from the Department.

The learned DC of Customs appeared before the CIC without any records and he told the Commission that he did not need any records as everything was on his fingertips. But this is what the Commission recorded about the wisdom of the fingertips:

Further, when Commission allowed him to proceed with the case, he started the arguments very aggressively and with a very rough and high tone which is not expected, at all, from the level of Dy. Commissioner of the department concerned. Dr. Ajitesh went on arguing the case illogically and on irrelevant issues He was again requested by the Commission either argue the case on relevant issues only or file written submissions in the matter. However, he failed to accede the Hon'ble Commissioner's request in this regard and went on arguing the case at his whims and fancies , which is totally unwanted and uncalled for from such officers of the level of Dr. Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, CPIO.

Wait, more is to come. He went to the extent of threatening the Commission with an FIR with the Police. Here is what the Commission said,

Dr. Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, CPIO also started to issue a number of threats to the Hon'ble Commissioner, such as, to make a complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner, today itself and even to lodge an FIR with the Police Station concerned, in case Hon'ble Commissioner fails to give its decision in accordance with his dictum, in the matter. However, later on, good sense prevailed upon Dr. Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, and he submitted his unconditional apology dated 31.07.2014, before the Hon'ble Commission. However, he suppressed so many things, such as, lodging of an FIR, making complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner etc. in his written apology .

If this is the way a junior IRS officer can behave with a senior officer in Authority as a Civil Court, who is more than thirty years older, who gets the highest pay in Government, you can well imagine how he would behave with ordinary importers and assessees. And if this is the arrogance at the lowest level of the ladder, what can you expect when he reaches higher levels. Don't they teach behaviour in NACEN and don't they tell the probationers that "Be you ever so high, the  law is still above  you."?

You can see the CIC decision here.

About a Hundred crores spent/wasted on CBDT Officers foreign Jaunts

THE CBDT has spent Rs.94 crores in the last four and a half years on the massive foreign excursion of its IRS officers called AMCTP - Advanced Mid Career Training Programme. Many departments of the Government of India have this MCTP, under which senior officers are given a fortnight's foreign tour to exotic locations of the world, with ex-India leave granted for further vacation at own cost. Some of the trainees are 58-59 years old; God knows what training they get at that age and to what extent that training is useful to the Department or the Nation.

Recently TC Gupta, a Deputy Commissioner in Income Tax got certain information under the RTI Act on this great wonder called MCTP. The questions he asked and the answers he got:

Q.i) Provide a copy of the report/reasons recorded for starting the MCTP Scheme.

Reply: The Training Division of DOP&T formulates the National Training Policy for the Central Government employees to bridge the competency gaps of the employees through training intervention. The proposal of Advanced Mid Career Training Programme [AMCTP] for IRS officers has been designed for Capacity Building of officers of IT Department. The scheme was designed on the basis of deliberations in 23rd Annual Conference of CCsIT/DGsIT in July, 2007 and the directions of the then FM. The proposal that was initially proposed by NADT was processed and examined by various divisions of CBDT from time to time and subsequently coordinated by HRD in the year 2009. The design of AMCTP for IRS was formulated by various high level committees and was examined, tweaked and toned at various levels from August 2007 to February, 2011 and the first AMCT Programme was finally rolled out in February, 2011 with the concurrence of IFU, Department of Expenditure and with the approval of Hon'ble FM. There is no particular or specific report from which the AMCTP scheme emanated.

The Income Tax Department had been undergoing a major metamorphosis in terms of its business processes, technical and information technology systems, citizen orientation and proactive approach to globalization and international tax issues. It was thus imperative that the Departmental human resources be exposed to International Best Practices, sound organizational practices and the latest managerial techniques, through a comprehensive system for human resource up gradation and reorientation. The advanced training program for in-service officers at various levels in their career was thought to be an essential ingredient for competency development.

The importance and relevance of the AMCTP is endorsed by the National Training Policy 2012 which stipulates that foreign training fills a crucial gap in the training system. It provides opportunities for officers to gain exposure to the latest thinking on different subject in some of the leading institutions of the world. It exposes them to experiences and best practices of different countries with differing models of development and governance. The NTP 2012 also recommended that each Ministry/Department/Organization set aside at least 2.5% of it salary budget for training.

Q. ii) Provide a copy of the report of study, if any, regarding usefulness of the scheme.

Reply: PI refer to the reply to question no.(i) above.

Q. iii) Provide number of officer in each grade who have availed MCTP, under CBDT and C&CE.

Reply: So far as the mid-career training programme of IRS [IT] officers are concerned, till date 12 batches of Addl./Jt CITs, 12 Batches of CITs/Pr.CITs and 5 batches of CCITs have been conducted wherein 471, 416 and 116 officers respectively have been imparted training.

Q. iv) Amount of expenditure incurred on the scheme, so far.

Reply: The Financial year wise amount incurred in the AMCTP scheme till date is Rs. 93.88 Crores.

Q. v) Reasons recorded for sending IRS probationers on foreign training/tour during their basis training.

Reply: The information may be sought from Pr. DG(Trg) NADT.

Q. vi) Reasons recorded for sending promotee ACITs on foreign training/tour during their basis training.

Reply: The information may be sought from Pr. DG(Trg) NADT.

THE CBEC must have also been spending such huge amounts on their MCTP. What is the reason and excuse for CBEC MCTP? The only explanation would be CBDT has it and so should we.

In this electronic age, is it necessary to send a senior officer like a Chief Commissioner all the way to US to learn how to collect tax in India? And with all these foreign trained officers, is there any substantial improvement in the tax administration in the country or are we simply wasting precious money on these costly excursions?

It is reported that in one of the classes in the US of A, these trainees were taught how to use a Facebook account. Their grandchildren would have taught them!

Amma Wants Central GST also to be handed over to States 

IN a letter to Prime Minister Modi, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has suggested a simpler structure of completely delegating the levy, collection and appropriation of the substitutes for VAT, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax within a State to the State machinery, with the Central machinery focusing on inter-state taxation. She says “Not only would such an arrangement be administratively much simpler, but it would also ensure that the original Constitutional design of fiscal federalism of leaving the States in complete control of at least one sizeable source of revenue is preserved. I believe it is still not too late to move forward on GST by putting in place the elegant solution I have suggested .”

She also wants an independent compensation mechanism. She adds, “The State's experience with the Centre's compensation mechanism both for the introduction of VAT and the reduction of Central Sales Tax has been far from satisfactory and does not inspire confidence that a fair, hassle-free and workable compensation mechanism can be devised and implemented”.

Though the Tamil Nadu CM has just revealed this plan, it was heard in the corridors that there was a proposal to hand over GST to the States to be administered by the VAT Departments with the inter-state GST being handled by a Central GST Board (not the CBEC). One reason for all these changes is the fear of harassment by the Service Tax officers of CBEC. CBEC Chief has already gone on record that she is not being consulted on GST - maybe it is slipping out of her hands. Will the CBEC be stuck with an army of 80,000 employees with no excise, no Service Tax and no GST?

The letter to the PM

Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers Meet Today

IT is reported that the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers is to meet today to discuss the latest status of GST. The Tamil Nadu CM's proposal is also likely to figure in the meeting.

209 candidates to join IRS(C&CE)

THE DoPT has allocated 209 candidates who have qualified in the Civil Services 2013, to the IRS (Customs and Central Excise). NACEN will have to train these 209 officers in the next two years. What will be the quality of training with over 200 trainees and hardly any infrastructure to train such large number? 165 candidates are allocated to IRS (Income Tax).

Central Excise Inspector Suresh Kumar Ola is among the 172 candidates allocated to IAS. Even though he is eligible for reservation under the OBC quota, Ola has made it into the service in the general category by virtue of his high rank of 41. (Please see DDT 2377). Dr. Divya S Iyer, currently undergoing training in NACEN as an IRS probationer is selected for IAS.. (Please see - NACEN's Research Paper accepted for 9th PICARD WCO conference DDT 2404.)

Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

Service Tax

Appellant splitting contract into two, one with Chinese party for supply of equipment and another with authorized person in India for erection and commissioning - services provided is Works Contract service - Department cannot force appellant to go for Works Contract Composition Scheme - value has to be determined as per Rule 2A of ST Valuation Rules, 2006 - Matter remanded: CESTAT

THE appellants are engaged in the business of generation of electricity. For setting up power plant they made enquiries with China National Automotive Industry International Corporation and another company SOKEO Power Private Ltd which is a Hyderabad based company and is representative of CNAICO in India. From the correspondence it was evident that the appellant awarded turnkey project for design, engineering, manufacture, testing, supply, transportation, site storage, erection, testing and commissioning of plant and machinery for setting up of the power plant. The appellant, thereafter, made two contracts one with CNAICO and another with SOKEO, the representative of CNAICO, first contract for supply of equipment while the second contract is for erection and commissioning. In respect of first contract no service tax is paid and for the second contract SOKEO has paid service tax under erection and commissioning service.

It is the case of the Revenue that the total work is for design, engineering, manufacture, testing, supply of equipment, transportation, erection, commissioning etc. and is, therefore, a turnkey project and the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the Works Contract on reverse charge basis for the amount paid by them to CNAICO.

Income Tax

Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted merely because assessee provides wrong PAN No of transport operator who was paid transport charges without deduction of tax at source - YES: ITAT

THE  assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of Transport contractor. He had filed his return, declaring total income at Rs.13,53,520/-. During assessment, AO noted from the details furnished by the assessee revealed that the assessee had received transport charges of Rs.3,41,32,614/- besides hiring charges and unloading charges. The assessee had paid transport charges of Rs.2,65,14,217/-. Since the assessee had not deducted TDS the AO asked the assessee to explain why provisions of section 40(a)(ia) should not be invoked. The assessee explained that the owners as well as transport operators had submitted their PAN Nos. and thus, as per provisions of section 194C (6) TDS was not required to be made.

The   issue before the Bench is - Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted merely because the assessee provides wrong PAN No of transport operator who was paid transport charges without deduction of tax at source. And the answer is YES.

Central Excise

Subsidy received by Fertilizer Company from Government cannot be considered as an additional consideration; not includible in assessable value: CESTAT

CBEC in Circular No.983/7/2014-CX dated 10.7.2014, has clarified that the subsidy given by the Government is not includable in the assessable value and Central Excise duty is not payable on the subsidy component provided by the Government. The grant of subsidy is given pursuant to an administrative decision taken by Government of India and payment of subsidy to the manufacturer by the Government cannot be regarded as discharge of any liability or obligation by the Government towards the purchasers of the fertilizers.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com