Low tax effect in pending appeals- The administrative role to withdraw appeal can be carried by officers of appellant and / or by the Advocate on Record of appellant ( revenue) and Registry office without engaging counsels by appellant and respondent.Appeals with low tax effect must be withdrawn to avoid wastage of public money, brain drain of honorable judges and counsels and to achieve purpose for prescribing minimum tax effect limit for filing appeals.

[DEVKUMAR KOTHARI]

Low tax effect in pending appeals-

The administrative role to withdraw appeal  can be carried by officers of  appellant and / or by  the Advocate on Record of appellant ( revenue) and Registry office without engaging counsels by appellant and respondent.

Appeals with low tax effect must be withdrawn to avoid wastage of public money, brain drain of honorable judges and counsels and to achieve purpose for prescribing minimum tax effect limit for filing appeals.

Some of earlier articles on similar subject on this website:

AVOID EXCESSIVE PUBLIC SPENDING ON UN NECESSARY LITIGATION AND ENGAGING EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF COUNSELS.

Dated: December 21, 2022

Supreme Court orders about alleged bogus capital gains on alleged penny stocks and case status of pending cases

Dated: May 1, 2024

FILING APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – LOW TAX EFFECT

Dated: April 29, 2024

In articles by author, detailed discussions have been made about un-necessary litigation by revenue causing brain drain and waste of time of honorable  Supreme Court , various High Courts  and Tribunals under direct and indirect tax laws.

In fact it can be said that by engaging large number of counsels, there is sheer wastage of public money , time of honorable courts and tribunals. Usually tax payers have engaged few counsels in such cases  however in some cases even taxpayer has engaged more than two counsels besides the Advocate on Records (AOR)

The purpose of prescribing minimum tax effect to file appeals was to reduce litigation, however, it is seen that the litigation is further increased in many cases. Although in some cases and jurisdictions by initiative of the Tribunal and Courts dismissal of such appeals was expedited , however that was also not necessary  if the revenue / appellant has voluntarily withdrawn appeals.

Salute to the judges for having patience:

Honorable judges deserve salute for having patience to see crowed of Advocates, when there is no need.

In fact revenue must withdraw such appeals to avoid wastage of time of all. In fact, Circulars prescribing monetary limits for filing appeals also suggests that such appeals may be withdrawn.

However, appeals are filed, not withdrawn and large number of senior and other counsels are engaged by revenue. The taxpayers has also to contest and for that engage counsels.

Simple way is available but not followed:

Simple way to avoid litigation are:

a. do not file appeal if tax effect is less than prescribed minimum.

b. in case appeal has been filed , it an be withdrawn by the appellant.

c. Tax effect amount-

Ascertainment of tax effect is a clerical job, it can be done by   the appellant and then can approach the AOR to withdraw the appeal by filing a petition to withdraw as per Rules and procedure.

In such cases respondent have no reason to object, however,  a copy of petition can be provided to the respondent so that he need not to engage counsels.

The Registrar of Court :

Registrar of Court can examine the petition and ensure that it is made properly and copy has been provided to the respondent. Then the petition can be put up before honorable judges to approve the same.

In fact by prescribing suitable procedure, and guidelines, and amendment if required  this work can be handled by the Registry office and there may not be need for consideration of honorable judges.

If this is done, there will be quick disposal of such appeals and pendency of cases on Courts and Tribunals  will be reduced.

Pending cases:

There may be still large number of cases pending before Tribunals , High Courts, and the Supreme Court. As can be observed from such cases being reported from time to time.

These deserve withdrawal to achieve the purpose of administrative and guiding Circulars and policy decisions taken by the Government and its departments. If these appeals are withdrawn , and such appeals are not filed in future, there will be reduction of pending cases.

Costs on counsels:

Counsels of government are supposed to guide government departments not to file such appeals and initiate or carry further litigation.  Unfortunately, ground reality is that suggestions are made to file appeal irrespective of it  being not eligible and also in not deserving cases. Courts can take suitable action and pass suitable orders including imposition of costs and damages on counsels who suggested such litigation and its continuation.

Costs and damages can be imposed:

If such appeals are filed and are not withdrawn, the Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court can impose heavy cost on concerned departments and erring officers. Such costs can be  suitably shared by the Court / or its institutions for welfare or some funds of governments  and the taxpayer to compensate for harassment and wastage of time of Courts and tax payer. This practice if adopted can effectively reduce pending appeals.  

Strength of counsels:

In some earlier articles author has given list of counsels who appeared in some of cases. If we undertake a detailed study it will be found that there are large number of such appeals still pending before Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.

In the article by learned author  Shri M.M. Govindarajan he has  mentioned some cases before the Supreme Court  and relevant Circulars relating to appeals under Customs and Central Excise. In cases discussed by him tax effect was low still appeal was filed, not withdrawn and large number of counsels were engaged by Revenue. For example, details of some of cases are given below with list of counsels who appeared( with serial number added by author) for counting:

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS CMR NIKKEI INDIA PVT. LTD. [2024 (1) TMI 291 - SC ORDER]

For the Appellant :

1. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.

2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR  

3. Mr. Mohd. Akhil, Adv.

4. Mr. Sughosh Subramaniyam, Adv.

5. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv.

6. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.

7. Mr. S.A. Haseeb,

8. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma-ii, Adv.

For the Respondent :

1.  Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR

2. Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv.

3. Ms. Vincy George, Adv.

4. Mr. Gokol Krishnan, Adv.

5.  Mr. Ajay Subash, Adv.

6. Mr. Shanmukha VVSKD Chakravarthi, Adv.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. LAVEENA COMBERS [2023 (11) TMI 272 - SC ORDER]

For the Appellant :

1. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.

2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

3. Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv.

4. Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv.

5. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv.

6. Mr. Satya Prakash Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondents :

1.  Mr. Shibu Devasia Olickal, AOR

C.C.E., KOLKATA III VERSUS M/S. KALYANI SPINNING MILLS LTD. [2023 (11) TMI 680 - SC ORDER]

For the Appellant(s) :

1.  Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.

2.  Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

3.  Ms. Shivika Mehta, Adv.

4. Ms. Chitrangada Rastvara, Adv.

5. Mr. Indrajit Prasad, Adv.

6.  Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) :

1. Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR

2. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY, PONDICHERRY VERSUS M/S. M.R.F. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERIPAKKM VILLAGE, PONDICHERRY [2023 (12) TMI 781 - SC ORDER]

For the Appellant(s)

1. Mr. N. Venkatrman, A.S.G.

2. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.

3. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.

4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

5.  Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.

6. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv.

7. Mr. Inderjit Prasad, Adv.

8. Ms. Ankita Anilkumar Singh, Adv.

9. Mr. S.A. Hasseb, Adv.

10. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR

For the Respondent(s)

1. Mr. K.V. Mohan, Adv.

2. Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv.

3. Mr. Devesh Kumar Khanduri, Adv.

4.  Mr. K. R. Nambiar, AOR

Similar will be position in other cases also.

Recent case 

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-III VERSUS NIRMA LTD. [2024 (5) TMI 110 - SC ORDER]

In this case also we find  large teams of counsels from both side namely:

For the Petitioner :

1. Mr. N. Venkatraman, Ld. ASG

2. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv.

3. Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Adv.

4. Mr. Moh. Akhil, Adv.

5. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.

6. Ms. Sunita Sharma,

7.  Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.

8. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.

9. Mrs. Bharti, Adv.

10. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

For the Respondent :

1. Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv.

2. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR

3. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.  

4. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.

5.  Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.

6. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv

Author request learned authors and readers to share their views and experience.

Requests and suggestions for Counsels.

Some of observations of author are not in the interest of litigation professionals and activities. These goes against interest of author also. Author consider that there should not be main object to earn money, rather professionals can do some other work for betterment of society instead of earning from un-necessary litigation. Senior counsels are also requested to avoid taking up such assignment, where there is no need of such senior counsels and their clients and AOR can do work for withdrawal of appeals. Filing of appeal, in cases of low tax effect and not deserving cases should also not be suggested.