Service Tax Department Protects Exporters From Bhais of Dubai, Kidnappers, Extortionists (Noida Commissionerate-Long Live)

[Rebecca Andrews]

When an RTI application was filed with Service Tax Department asking for disclosures of number of refund claims pending for last several years, with period, names & addresses, it refused to provide, because :

                      "The disclosure will endanger the life and physical safety of claimants".

We all must join to laud their noble intentions. Why will the Department permit anyone else to fleece you ? 

We criticize them un-necessarily. Even CIC (RTI) took an irrational stand, asking the department to place complete details on their web-site in 6 weeks.

See how much burden exporters are putting on the hardworking Department. Now they will have to work overtime to prepare the lists. 

Sorry, who said that processing and sanctioning refund of taxes already paid is the main job of the department ? 

Absolutely wrong. Just because you have an army does not mean you have to fight the enemy. Running a Govt. Hospital does not mean they will encourage  people to become sick.  Flood department is not there to cause floods.

Similarly, how can you ask the  refund department to sanction refunds. 

Don't the exporters realise that they are creating a law and order problem for themselves and for police who will now have to divert their forces from guarding criminal-politicians to protecting exportes.

First thing for Home Minister Mr. Chidamabaram : Set-up a special task force consisting of encounter-specialists to deal with the menace and threat arising out of  disclosures of names of exporters whose claims have not been settled for several years, as ordered by CIC. 

Let the exporters cough up the additional security-bill as a result of filing refund claims that will lead to endangering their own lives and physical safety. 

Let any hand creating threat to exporters be dispensed medieval justice : a hand for a hand and an arm for an arm. Any hand that signs to sanction and grant the refund claim be considered for severest punishment, and be branded a law & order violator. 

Such anti-nationals officers must be sent to Kalapani. Mercifully, there are no such black-sheep officerts who have actually passed the claims. Thank God.

Physical Safety and saving lives of exporters is the need of the hour : Not the sanctioning of refund claims which deserve to languish for another decade.

The nation is at cross-roads. Maoist Menace must wait. Priority is to deal with the latest threat arising from misadventure of exporters.

Strict action should be taken against exporters for filing refund claims. IPC should be amended to make it a jailable offence.

Read on the full story from taxindiaonline :

Ms. Rebecca Andrews

WITHHOLDING of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has been simmering for more than four years. Several times, the matter came up for consideration by CBEC after representations from the aggrieved assessees and the benevolent Board issued suitable clarifications and directions to the field formations to process and sanction the claims in accordance with the directions issued from time to time.

This did not yield the desired results. So, the Finance Ministry went to the extent of proposing retrospective amendments to Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) in this Budget to facilitate smooth sanction of refund claims. But the high and mighty in the field formations have utter disregard to the directions issued from the Board. They blissfully reject the refund claims/ or simply sleep over the claims unmindful of the Board's directions.

Recently it has come to our notice that Service Tax authorities in Bangalore are returning refund claims to the assessees on flimsy grounds after keeping them for considerable amount of time and directing the assessees to re-submit them with appropriate supporting documents (CA Certificate etc); they have taken recourse to this action just to beat the Section 11B time limitation, otherwise they would end up paying refund with interest.

Frustrated by such delaying tactics a petition was filed under the RTI Act by an aggrieved person before the Central Excise and Customs, Noida seeking an assortment of details regarding pendency of refund claims in respect of service tax assessees. In his application, the appellant sought the names of the assessees, service tax registration nos., amount of refund claimed, date of filing of refund applications and reasons for their pendency.

Naturally this application got the boot from the lower authorities. The appellant unmindful of the reversals took it all the way to Central Information Commission for redressal. Before the CIC, both the appellant (appeared in person) and the respondent represented by an Assistant Commissioner put forth their contentions on the various issues taken up by the CIC for adjudication. After deliberating on the arguments from both sides CIC ordered as follows:

Issue:

List of all such refund orders pending to be issued along with reasons for non issuance of refund orders yet. Showing name of the assessee, Service Tax Registration No., amount of refund claimed, date of filing the refund application.

CIC: The authorities' claim that disclosure of the names of the claimants would endanger their life or physical safety is not persuasive. If this information is made public, no harm is likely to be caused to anybody; rather it would help the claimants get to know the status of their respective claims as well the status of the other similar claims.

Issue:

Whether there is any delay in processing and sending the refund orders to assessees? If yes, who is responsible for the delay and what action you are taking/have taken/ propose to take against the official/s responsible for the delay? If no, how much time it should take as per law, normally to issue a refund order in such cases?

CIC: This query is interrogatory in nature and thus does not qualify to be information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Nevertheless, the name of the officers handling the refund claims to be provided to the appellant within two weeks.

Issue:

By which date will the assessees get their refund orders?

CIC: This query demands the future course of action of the public authority which cannot be directed to be answered.

Issue:

List of documents required to be enclosed with the refund application in form ‘A'.

CIC: The authorities are directed to examine each category of refund claim and prepare their exhaustive lists (of supporting documents required for the claim), which shall be placed on the website of the public authority within six weeks of the receipt of this order for appellant's access.

Responding to the appellants claim for penal action against the authorities for not furnishing the requisite information and seeking of compensation for the inconvenience caused to him by not supplying the information, the CIC was benevolent to the authorities and declined to pass any order in favour of the appellant on this issue.

Will this CIC order be an eye opener for the Board that there is something seriously rotting in the field? In a year from now, we are moving to the GST regime which expects the authorities to be more transparent and responsive to the assessees. Let us hope CBEC sensitizes the field formations the dynamics of a GST regime before it is rolled out in 2011.

See CIC Order Dated January 21, 2010

Refund Position to be uploaded in CBEC website

IT is understood that consequent to the above decision, the CIC had asked the CBEC Chairman to comply with the directions and to place the requisite information in the Board's website within six weeks from the CIC's letter dated 9.3.2010.

Let us hope they are compliant as they expect their assessees to be.