1. Hon’ble Commissioner rightly blasted: "Don’t interfere with my dept."

We strongly support the Hon’ble Commissioner in his stand in which he has conveyed his anguish, suffocation and discomfort to the Government, over a Congress MLA recommending specific intra-department transfers, especially in the Enforcement branch. A detailed news report in this behalf has appeared in Times of India (Mumbai Mirror) dated 11-9-2006. We are therefore publishing the same as an extension of this column.

2. Indeed, we share the grave concern of the Commissioner in administrating the Department in which, he should have last word about the personnel working under him and where they should be posted. He rightly said: "If the postings are done after exerting political pressure, discipline in the sales tax enforcement branch will not only be ruined, but it will send out wrong signals to sales tax employees."
    

3. We, as such, greatly appreciate and commend the right stand taken by the Commissioner as the Head of the Department and boldly conveyed it to the Government. In the circumstances, let us hope that the Government takes a serious note of the views of the Head of the Department, and frames it transfer policy accordingly.

2. Works Contract

Transactions of "works contract" have, over number of years, bothered the tax-payers, legislature as well as judiciary. They are now constitutionally and statutorily are called "deemed sales". Further, on such transactions two types of taxes could be levied legally, viz. service tax and sales tax under the MVAT Act, 2002. But, on the same transaction, there is a further tax which very few know! Recently, the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, has been amended w.e.f. 1-5-2006, and, among others, under Article 63 "works contract" has been made liable to stamp duty as under:
 

a)	Where the amount Rs. 100/- or value set forth in such contract does not exceed rupees ten lakhs.
(b)	Where it exceeds
	Rs. ten lakh.	Rs. 100/- plus Rs. 100/- for every rupees 1,00,000/- or part thereof, above Rs. ten lakh, subject to maximum of Rs. five lakhs.

2. Kindly note that non-payment of stamp-duty on the above contracts will result into levy of penalties as well as impounding of such documents. Hence, one should not forget making compliance with the above amendment in law.
    

3. So, one has now to realize that on certain type of works contract, one has to pay service tax to the Union Government and sales tax and stamp duty to the Maharashtra Government. Thus, the net of taxes is being spread wide and wide, but the State and Central Treasury always remains empty and the debt burden on every citizen increases year-after-year, without there being any visible improve-ment either in infrastructure facilities or future benefits accruing to a tax-payer.

3. Apex Court says – Refund no excuse for charging tax

In direct or indirect taxes, the authorities insist that the tax liability as assessed should be paid first, ignoring the plea of the tax-payer that in law there is no liability on his head. In such a situation, their stock reply is that should you succeed in appeal proceeding, you shall receive the refund.

2. It is in the above context, in a significant observation, the Supreme Court has said in the judgment, Rapti Commission Agency vs. State of U.P. (reported under caption ‘Business Law’, Business Standard dated 11-9-2006), that a large number of unnecessary litigations could be avoided if the authorities did not collect tax on the basis that it would be refunded if the assessee was found not liable to pay it. Though this case referred to the validity of trade tax charged from agents of principals who were outside U.P., the remark was made by the court to remind the legislatures that - "it is no solace to say that such person can
   get refund after completion of the assessment."
    

3. Let us hope that the authorities throughout the country follow the above decision of the Apex Court.

4. Secretary Panel slams new Saral Form

As per ‘Economic Times’ report dated 6-9-2006, taking cognizance of the widespread criticism of the Finance Ministry’s decision to introduce a complex, multi-page tax returns form to replace the single-page Saral, a Committee of Secretaries has criticized the new format and suggested some major changes.

2. The Committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary B.K. Chaturvedi, has picked several holes in the new version of the form, and, among other things, recommended the withdrawal of a controversial clause requiring income-tax payers to provide a detailed cash-flow statement.
    

3. A note prepared by the said Committee says – "Schedule 5 of the form should be revised by obtaining information relating to exempted income, gifts, loans, etc. instead of the detailed cash statement." The note has been forwarded to the Prime Minister’s office.
    

4. The Committee’s recommendations are likely to add to the pressure on the Revenue Department to withdraw the new form altogether, and come out with a revised one. The Department has, much to its dismay, discovered that their new proposal has few takers across the country, including the Cabinet Secretary.
    

5. Are such matters required to go right up to the Committee of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary and thereafter to Prime Minister ?

5. Right to Information Act, 2005

When the above Central Act was enacted, effective from 12-10-2005, drums were beaten up by all the concerned that in a real sense a commoner has got a weapon to cut to size the administrative machinery, to resolve their problems and raise hue and cry against the great delay and corrupt practices adopted by the administrative machinery, in replying letters of public in general.

2. However, my experience shows that nothing significantly has improved and the administrative machinery is not obliged to comply with the above central legislation. Here below are two cases where information is denied:–

1. I had asked for a specific information to the Central Information Officer, in the Office of the Chairman, LIC, in respect of a building where my own office is situated. Regrettably, although a period of 30 days is over from the date of lodging of the application for information, no response has been received. As per law, if no response is received within 30 days time, law presumes that the information has been denied. In these circumstances, as provided u/s 18 r/w Section 20 I have filed a complaint with the Central Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi, against the Central PIO, LIC, Mumbai. Let us hope that the Central Chief Information Commissioner takes appropriate action as per law on my complaint.
    

2. In another case, I had sought an information from the State Information Officer, in the Office of the Commissioner of Co-operation & Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, as to whether the Co-operation Department as a matter of policy gives "Tea Allowance" to Dy. Registrars, in Maharashtra State, to extend hospitality to persons appearing for hearing before them, in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Societies Act, Rules and Bye-laws? If the answer is in the affirmative, please indicate the amount in rupees of allowance given per month. Whether, such allowance is of a permanent nature or temporary. In this case also, the State Information Officer in the Office of the Commissioner of Co-operation, Pune, did not respond within 30 days time but responded thereafter by putting antedate on his letter to show that the reply has been given within 30 days time. Such type of tactic adopted by the Officers is not new to us. Unfortunately, their superiors are satisfied with their such type of working. In this case too, I have filed a complaint before the State Information Commissioner and awaiting his reply.

3. The above two cases clearly indicate that the administration is not bothered about the penal provisions contained in the above Act, because they are sure that no adverse action will be taken against them by the superior Officers. The moral of the story is, common man’s democratic rights although are recognized in the above Act, but the same are taken away by the mighty administrative machinery. Yet, we must continue our efforts to fight out issues, despite experiencing frustration in such matters.