Unnecessary Litigation - Besides financial costs, litigation also entails tarnishing image of Department and straining its resources - CBDT Member
09 07 2015
Thursday
THE apathy of the Department Officers is evident in another shocking incident where in a sensitive search case, appeal was filed by the Department in High Court. The Registry pointed out certain defects in filing of appeal and the Court granted time to remove the defects. This relates to the year 2009. From 2009 till 2014, no follow-up action was taken and the case was dismissed due to default on part of the Department in curing procedural defects. The Department filed a MA praying for restoration of the main appeal and subsequently a Review Petition, which were dismissed by the Court. When the matter travelled to the Supreme Court, the Apex court has taken a serious view and directed that Department ascertain and fix responsibility on the individual/(s) guilty of inaction and for taking appropriate action against them for such inaction. This default was compounded by the fact that the SLP was filed after a delay of 240 days.
This is not DDT lambasting the Department; these are the words of Mr. SK Ray, Member, CBDT in a D.O Letter.
The Member refers to three other cases:
1. In Prescon Builders Pvt. Ltd . - 2015-TIOL-703-ITAT-MUM, the ITAT observed, "At least the senior officer such as Commissioner of Income Tax should have carefully perused the record and CIT(A)'s order before granting authorisation. The very fact that the AO filed the appeals without even verifying the year, which was mentioned in the grounds of appeal, also indicates that the appeals were filed in a routine manner which causes lot of inconvenience to the taxpayers and such a practice should be deprecated."
2. In CIT-2 Vs. State Bank of India - 2015-TIOL-448-HC-MUM-IT, the High Court noted that where the Revenue has accepted the order by not preferring any Appeal against the earlier order, the Revenue should not challenge the subsequent order on the same issue. In case an appeal is preferred from the subsequent order, then the Memo of appeal must indicate the reasons as to why an appeal is being preferred in the later case when no appeal was preferred against the earlier order of the Tribunal which has merely been followed in the later case. The absence of this being indicative of non-application of mind, does undoubtedly give an opportunity to the Revenue to arbitrarily pick and choose the orders of the Tribunal which they would challenge in the Appeal before the Court.
3. In the case of Sh. S. Ganesh - 2015-TIOL-1072-ITAT-MUM, the ITAT observed, that the act of disregard and disobedience of the orders of the higher judicial authorities in hierarchy amounts to the gross abuse of process of law and is an act which tends to lower down the authority of the higher courts. In this case an appeal was filed on an issue settled by the ITAT in its earlier decision in the same case.
The CBDT Member notes that despite several instructions on the subject, necessary due diligence and caution is not being exercised while granting authorization for filing of appeals.
The Member concludes, "Further, besides financial costs, litigation also entails tarnishing the image of the Department and straining its resources. The significance of filing appeal and pursuing litigation only in deserving cases cannot be over-emphasized, more so in the backdrop of the fact that Department is facing shortage of officers at all levels. It is imperative that the available resources are optimally utilized to obtain maximum benefit out of litigation."
Will the field follow his instructions?
CBDT Member's D.O. No.279/M-88/2014-ITJ., Dated: July 03, 2015
SEZ - Digitization of applications/permissions by SEZ Units/Developers (Phase-II)
AS part of "Ease of Doing Business" initiative of Department of Commerce, certain transactions were identified by DoC as important applications made by SEZ units and Developers to Development Commissioner's office and DoC for various Approvals/intimations/reporting. DoC had initiated online submission process for them from 1 st November 2014. (Please see DDT 2469 05 11. 2014 ). Now the following applications are also made online.
For Developers:
1. Application for change of sector of SEZ (Form C3)
2. Application for addition of land in notified SEZ (Form C4)
3. Application for deletion of land in notified SEZ (Form C5)
4. Application for De-notification of Notified SEZ (Form C6)
5. Application for Form I for CST Exemption
6. Application to lease out space for canteen facilities etc. in processing area
7. Application for approval of list of materials and Services to carry on authorized operation in SEZ.
8. Receipt & examination of the proposal by DC Office for setting up of Special Economic Zone, Processing the proposal along with site inspection report to DOC for consideration by Board of Approval (BoA).
For Units:
1. Application for Issuance of Importer Exporter Code.
2. Application for Issuance of Registration-Cum-Membership Certificate.
3. Application for Issuance of Form-I for CST Exemption
4. Application for Approval of list of Services
5. Application for Addition of area of unit
6. Application for Deletion of area of unit
7. Application for Final Exit Order from SEZ Scheme
8. Application for GSP Certificate
9. Broad banding (addition of authorized operations)
10. Capacity enhancement
11. Diversification/change in the items of manufacture or service activity
12. Change of entrepreneur, change of name and change in shareholding pattern.
DOC has requested all Development Commissioners to start the process along with existing process with effect from 1st July,2015 for which necessary arrangements have already been made in SEZ Online System by NSDL.
No manual interface will be allowed with effect from 01.07.2015 for applications already identified and effective 1st November 2014.
Dept. of Commerce No.D.12/25/2012-SEZ (Pt.), Dated: June 30, 2015
Customs - Extension of validity of self-sealing permission
IN a recent meeting of the Cochin Customs Permanent Trade Facilitation Committee meeting, a point was raised that as per current procedure 'Self Sealing Permission' was granted for a period of one year and the applicants had to renew the permission annually.
The Commissioner informed that self sealing certification was introduced as a trade friendly measure to simplify procedures and that when a manufacturer/exporter was granted the permission for self sealing, the status was to be maintained till any over riding instructions/orders were issued or till such party had come to adverse notice of the Department. The Commissioner assured that instructions would be issued to the concerned Section to discontinue with the procedure of annual renewal of self-sealing permission granted to eligible manufacturers/exporters.
Inspector Central Excise to Civil Services
KUMAR MANISH SINHA cleared the Civil Services Exam, 2014 and secured 266 th rank.
An Engineering graduate, Manish had joined the Central Excise department in December 2013 as an Inspector and was posted in the Palghar Division of Thane-II Commissionerate. (Mumbai).
S. Sujith Das of Kerala is an engineering graduate who worked as Inspector of Central Excise, was selected for the Indian Forest Service last year and now he has secured 689 th rank in Civil Services 2014.
DDT congratulates them & wishes the best for their future.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in
