M J Antony: Calculated delays

Backstage manipulation in steering revenue matters costs the exchequer dear.

“The law is merciless is a frequently quoted saying,” the Supreme Court wrote recently. “We have become used to the understanding that such emotions as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist in legal cases, especially in judiciary. It has led people to think that law is separated from feelings of righteousness. This, in our view, is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness.” As if to emphasise this point, the court reinstated a backward class teacher whose caste was reclassified by the government without her knowing it (Premkumari vs Divisional Commissioner). Legally she would have lost her job, but the court exercised its extraordinary constitutional power to save her income and family.

 

Though the court, in the same breath, stated that it did not believe in misplaced sympathy, its milk of human kindness flows uninterrupted in tax cases where the governments sleep over lost cases, without deciding whether to appeal to the higher court or not. The revenue authorities have a duty to file prompt appeals in deserving cases, as public money is involved. The Limitation Act and other statutes prescribe the deadline for filing appeals in each case. However, every other tax appeal by the government is accompanied by an application for ‘condonation of delay’ and the judges routinely grant this prayer.

The court severely criticised this practice in a judgement last fortnight in State of Karnataka vs Y Mooideen Kunhi (dead). In 1982, this person (may his soul rest in peace) bought plantation land with certificates from the Cardamom Board and the Rubber Board. But the government found that the additional land with him was in excess of the limit set by the Land Reforms Act. The land tribunal and the High Court went against the government, but after 14 years, the government filed a review petition, invoking the mantra of ‘condonation of delay’. The High Court dismissed this prayer, and the government approached the Supreme Court to remove the bar. It asked the government to pay Rs 10 lakh before hearing its appeal and also directed it to initiate action against “every person responsible for the alleged fraud and delay in pursuing the legal remedies, fix responsibility and recover the amount from them.”

The government’s plea was that if the inordinate delay was not condoned and strict rules are enforced, it would result in public mischief by “skilful management of delay in filing appeals”. It admitted that many government appeals are delayed either by the nature of the bureaucratic process or by deliberate manipulation by taking advantage of loopholes in the conduct of litigation.

The Supreme Court described this case as a “classic example” of skilful management of delay. The officials dealt with the matter in a casual and lethargic manner, either deliberately or without understanding the implications. The judgement said: “It is a common grievance that it is so done to protect unscrupulous litigants at the cost of public interest or exchequer. Though the courts are liberal in dealing with belated presentation of appeals, there is a limit up to which such liberal attitude can be extended.”

The judgement cited a 2003 report of the CAG which studied delays in filing appeals in tax cases. The rules prescribe time limits for each stage of the process. But these are hardly followed. The delays occur at all stages: Receipt of certified copy, submission of papers to the board, their examination, drafting by the panel counsel and filing by the excise officials. The delays are not in terms of days or months, but often in years. Then the government tries to justify the delay on questionable grounds. One excuse was that the new collector of central excise needed time to familiarise himself with the work. The court did not accept the explanation. The CAG report quoted the financial losses to the exchequer in each case.

There was an appeal delayed by 30 years, and condoned by the court, but that was by a citizen for valid reasons. While individuals would pursue their remedy as fast as possible, the state is an impersonal machinery working through its officers enjoined to work for public weal. Therefore, they should be accountable.

This is the second time in recent months that the court has called upon the state to fix responsibility on individual officials. In State of Delhi vs Ahmed Jaan, the court stated that the officer who failed to appeal on time should be made personally responsible for the lapse. However, this is easily said than done. The brotherhood of the bureaucracy has always triumphed over public interest and, Yes, Minister!