2017 (9) TMI 1698 - Tri - Indian Laws

Representation of the applicant made in reply to the Charge Memorandum - Commencement of inquiry proceedings - Held that - The main ground raised by the applicant in view of the contention of the respondents and the other grounds of the applicant are required to be examined in detail - Further as submitted by the respondents counsel that the inquiry has not yet been commenced the prayer for interim relief shall be considered after filing of counter by the respondents or at an appropriate time if the applicant shows any urgency. Issue notice.

Summary

Issues: Validity of Charge Memorandum and Jurisdiction of Competent Authority

The judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, involved the challenge by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) against a Charge Memorandum and consequential letter issued to initiate inquiry proceedings. The applicant contended that the Charge Memorandum, not approved by the President or Finance Minister, was non-est based on the decision in Union of India & Others v. B.V.Gopinath. The respondents argued that since the Charge Memorandum was issued in the name of the President through the Finance Ministry, the B.V.Gopinath decision was not applicable. The Tribunal noted the need for detailed examination of the grounds raised and decided to issue notice to the respondents for a reply by a specified date.

The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the validity of the Charge Memorandum and the jurisdiction of the competent authority to issue such a document. The applicant challenged the Charge Memorandum dated 06.02.2017 and the subsequent letter indicating the initiation of inquiry proceedings. The applicant's counsel argued that the Charge Memorandum, issued in the name of the President by the Ministry of Finance, was invalid as it lacked approval from the President or the Finance Minister, citing the decision in Union of India & Others v. B.V.Gopinath. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the Charge Memorandum, being issued in the name of the President through the Finance Ministry, was valid, and the B.V.Gopinath decision did not apply in this case.

The applicant's counsel emphasized that the competent authority for issuing a Charge Memorandum to the applicant should have been the President, represented by the Finance Minister. Since the draft Charge Memorandum did not receive approval from either the President or the Finance Minister, the applicant argued that the Charge Memorandum was non-est. The respondents, however, maintained that the issuance of the Charge Memorandum in the name of the President through the Finance Ministry rendered it valid, thereby challenging the applicant's assertion regarding the lack of approval from the competent authority.

The Tribunal acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of the grounds raised by both parties regarding the validity of the Charge Memorandum. While the respondents opposed granting any interim relief, citing that the inquiry had not yet commenced, the Tribunal decided to issue notice to the respondents for a reply by a specified date. The Tribunal indicated that the prayer for interim relief would be considered after the respondents filed their reply or if the applicant demonstrated urgency at a later stage. This approach aimed to ensure a comprehensive review of the issues before making a decision on the validity of the Charge Memorandum and the jurisdiction of the competent authority.