AWARE AND BEWARE

[jayaprakash gopinathan]

          The Judgement of the Hon,ble High court of P & H , Chandigrah in Bhagavati International Vs GOI-2002 -TMI - 47460 - (HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) should serve as an eye opener to all serving officers that all actions, even in good faith and in the interest of department should lie with in the  four corners of law. Revenue officials being the back bone of any system of administration, all the scriptures of ancient times prescribed parameters for their actions and the subject was one of the prime one in Arthasasthra by Kautalya. All the couplets convey messages and directions which out lived time factor and remained true over generations.  

          By the cited decision the Hon’ble High Court not only directed to refund the amount got deposited by the Department but also ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum which is ½ % more than the rate of interest being paid on employees provident fund which is a subject matter under discussion by the higher political and administrative sections. The exact word used by the Hon’ble Court is “coercion”. Dictionary defines it as, intimidation, compulsion, force, cruelty, duress etc.

The petitioner in the instant case is a 100% EOU. The judgment does not describe the nature of the case or contents of the notice issued by the Department belatedly. It may either be for illegal import of capital goods or for violation of procedures. In Customs & Excise cases relevant date play a crucial role and limitation revolves around this fulcrum. Can the Department issue a notice invoking extended period of time for suppression of facts in the light of the fact that department prompted the petitioners for depositing an amount of Rs.50 lakhs and succeeded in it without issuing a notice. Non – levy or short levy of customs duty is to be issued with in six months from the relevant date in the instant case. Since the notice is issued only in 2000, there appears to have aroused a question of limitation which ought to have avoided if notice preceded the “coercive” tactics. It is true that money matters. However such actions which are sanctioned as per law alone survive the test and which alone justify the actions.

          The officers should have concern for the assessees during the period of service rather than during their consultancy tenure after their retirement since it is because of the assessees that the official clan exists.