APATHETIC BUREAUCRACY

Kindly re-read the editorial of October 2005, Sales Tax Review. We had appealed to the Central Government to abolish ‘C’ form. We had stated therein the reasons for the same. Alternatively, we had also requested the Commissioner to provide immediate solution to the problems, which the dealers were confronted with due to the sudden change in the provisions and procedure. The Sales Tax Practitioners’ Association of Maharashtra, the Federation of Association of Manufacturers and other similar trade bodies had brought to the notice of the Commissioner the difficulties, which they were and would be facing due to this amendment in Central Law.

Probably, the Commissioner felt any such appeal unimportant and therefore, did not give serious attention to it. He, on the contrary, amended the CST (Bombay) Rules and worsened the position. He made the issuance of forms extremely difficult. Expected results ensued. There is now rampant corruption in giving forms. Not only the clerks or peons but the officers are also demanding huge bribes for giving forms. Our State is now number one in corruption in entire country. This position was brought to the notice of the Addl. Commissioner Mr. Rastogi. But he wants the dealers to approach the anti-corruption and expressed his helplessness in removing such enormous corruption in that department. Is it possible for dealers to approach the anti-corruption department every time they deal with the Sales Tax department? Can the Addl. Commissioner not set right the things? Is it not the part of his duty to protect the public from the harassment, which is being done by his subordinates? Is it that difficult to curb the corruption in that department? Can he not install close circuit televisions in the premises to keep a watch on the culprits, he has in his department, especially when the Government is spending so much public money on renovation. Entire corporate sector is unhappy with the attitude of the higher ups. It is better, they immediately act in the matter or that day is not too far when they will have to face the media.

State of Maharashtra is the only State in the entire country, which has shown over enthusiasm in complicating the issuance of declarations and certificates to the dealers. Section 13(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, authorizes the Central Government to make rules, providing, inter alia, the form in which and the particulars to be contained in any declaration or certificate to be given under the Act. By sub-section (3) of section 13 the State Government is authorized to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made under sub-section (1) to carry out the purposes of the Act, and by sub-section (4) of section 13 the State Government is, in particular and without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (3), authorized to make rules for all or any of the purposes set out therein including, "the authority from whom, the condition subject to which and the fees subject to payment of which any form or declaration prescribed under the Act may be obtained, the manner in which the form shall be kept in custody and records relating thereto be maintained, the manner in which any such form may be used and any such declaration may be furnished".

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 13(1)(d) the Central Government has prescribed the declarations and certificates to be given under the CST Act, 1956, the State of origin of such declaration or certificate and the time within which any such certificate or declaration could be produced or furnished. It is left to the State Government to prescribe the Rules containing the conditions for issuance of such certificates or declaration, custody thereof, use thereof and the manner in which those could be furnished. But these Rules conferring powers on the State Government cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of CST Act, 1956 and the Rules made by the Central Government under section 13(1) of the said Act.

Unfortunately, the Government of Maharashtra has transgressed theses powers conferred by sections 13 (3) and (4) of CST Act, while effecting amendments in the Rules vide Notification No. CST1306/CR/10/Taxation–(1) dated 24th Feb, 2006. Sub-Rule (4) of the newly substituted Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957 states that any loss of Government revenue resulting from the loss, destruction or theft of declaration or certificate would be recoverable from the dealer having custody, as an arrears of land revenue. Is this rule consistent with the powers conferred on the State Government by sections 13(3) and (4) of the CST Act?

Sub-rule (18) of Rule 4 is another such example. The Rule states that the dealer is required to furnish at the time of obtaining the certificate or declaration from the department, the details of the transaction including the name and registration certificate number of the vendor and the total number of invoices in respect of which the declaration or certificate is to be issued. The State Government conveniently forgets here that in number of cases the declaration or certificate is required to be furnished to the vendor against the delivery of the goods, which the dealer is supposed to take in another State after submitting the declaration or certificate and thereafter moves the goods himself to the State of Maharashtra, for example auction sales. In such circumstances whether it is possible for the dealer to furnish all the details required by Rule 4(18) of Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The State Government wants the dealers in the State of Maharashtra to perform an obligation, which is impossible to perform. Sometimes, we feel that the State of Maharashtra wants to discourage the inter-State trade and commerce, which constitutionally it is duty bound to promote. If such is not the intention, the Government should pay immediate attention to the hardship, which is being caused to the dealers and take curative steps. Filing of Writ Petition need not be the solution for every act of the Government.