On 31st May 2007 I had the privilege to welcome personally the new Commissioner, Shri Sanjay Bhatia, on my behalf as well as on behalf of the Association. On that occasion, I also bade farewell to Shri Khatua, the outgoing Commissioner. Shri Bhatia, in the right earnest, have drawn out a list of priorities needing his attention. While having informal discussion at the office of the Tribunal Bar Association, he referred to the task before him needing attention. I am glad to notice that eradication of the much talked about corruption in the Department was his top priority. We offer our full support and co-operation in his endeavour to drive away the multifaceted dragon from the Department. The Commissioner also rightly emphasised the need for complete computerisation and avoidance of personal interaction with the taxpayers. We are sure, such measures will definitely lead to reduction in the scope of corruption prevailing in the Department. We also take this opportunity of bringing to his notice some of the aspects of the administration which also deserve equal attention at his end. They are :

1. TIN Certificate

We have received many complaints from several tax-payers pointing out non receipt of their TIN Certificates though the sum of Rs.100/- per certificate was collected for that purpose a year back. It is reliably learnt that though the tender for supply of TIN Certificates and the courtesy letters under Profession Tax Act submitted by one of the bidders,

M/s ECIL, was accepted and an advance of about Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) has also been paid, no agreement as provided in the tender form so far have been executed. In the meanwhile, several mistakes were noticed in the certificates supplied by the said company. Vide Circular No. 13T of 2007 dated 7th February, 2007, the then Commissioner also accepted such a position, but instead of taking up the matter with the said company, the tax-payers who received certificates with mistakes, were directed to de novo undergo the procedure mentioned in the Circular. Such a measure, in our view, led to unwarranted harassment to the tax-payers. The assessees also suffered disqualification at the hands of other public bodies who insist for a copy of TIN Certificates. In our view, the loss to such tax-payers should be compensated by the successful bidders who have failed to adhere to the time schedule in delivering the correct certificates. We hope the new Commissioner will consider stern action against the concerned supplier.

2. Refund

The procedure adopted in the recent past for granting due refund have led to unwarranted delay which at times adversely affect the financial planning by the tax-payers. Calling for the same information by three different authorities considering the refund application, according to us, create avoidable harassment. We are of the view that it is the statutory right of an assessee to get the refund without any delay. In almost all cases, the assessees demand return of their own money which they paid in excess of their liability in the Government treasury, either directly or indirectly through their respective vendors. In such a scenario, we fail to understand the unwarranted delay caused at each stage leading to several uncalled for visits by the tax-payers which ultimately give rise to the scope of giving phillip to the unscrupulous elements in the Department.

3. Revision/Rectification

The judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Shiv Slayam Enterprise (34 MTJ 544) have resulted in many unintended consequences. Many of the rectification applications under section 62 of the repealed B.S.T. Act 1959, which remained to be disposed of for fairly long period of two years, were dismissed for no fault of the applicants who as per the law then understood, did make the application of rectification well within the statutory period of two years. Secondly, the first appeals filed before the appropriate appellate authority against the order under section 57 of the said repealed Act passed by the concerned revisional authority, were in accordance with the law understood and implemented by the very Department, right from 1st January, 1960. It is really a sorry state of affair that their appeals were now to be treated as not even maintainable at this late stage, when all along such appeals were not only entertained but also dealt with and disposed of by all authorities including the Tribunal. Some such matters also reached the Bombay High Court in Reference and were decided on merit without any objection from either parties. In the above circumstances, we feel that immediate action ought to have been taken by the law and judiciary department to first revive the relevant provisions of the repealed Act of 1959 and retrospectively restore the position that prevailed before the aforesaid judgment. In this connection, the then Commissioner had already submitted his report as proposed herein. However, no action seems to have been taken in that regard by the Sachivalaya personnel.

We hope the new Commissioner will use his good offices to see that normalcy is restored at the earliest date.

Tushar Joshi