The author passionately calls the Tribunal a “Temple of Justice” and the Bench and the Bar its’ “Trustees”. He gives out the clarion call that the onus is on the Bench and the Bar to preserve the dignity, sanctity and purity of this Temple

1. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and if it wrongly decides the matter the assessee is virtually left with no remedy. An appeal to High Court can be only on substantial question of law. Litigants before the Tribunal are of two categories, the aggrieved assessee and the Government. But the objective of filing appeal is different for both categories. An assessee rings the bell of justice before the Tribunal, only when the Assessing Officer makes additions which are not in accordance with law or facts. Appeals before the Tribunal involve, time and money, both of which he can ill afford to squander. Before doing so he makes a careful cost benefit analysis and elects to appeal only when the stakes are high and there is reasonable chance of success. Assessee is not an academician and does not derive any pleasure in obtaining a judgment for the sake of publicity or for laying down a legal precedent. The Government through different functionaries, on the other hand, files appeals, in most of the cases mainly out of fear of being questioned by superiors as to why appeal was not filed. Secondly, the Government does not have to pay any appeal fees. Thirdly assuming the appeal is dismissed there is no accountability of the officers to explain as to why such appeal frivolous are being filed. Considering the above scenario, the Members of the Tribunal have a greater responsibility. While hearing the appeals they are not merely adjudicating on the issues before them but they are invariably deciding on the fortune of the assessee. Whereas, one wrong decision against an assessee may ruin his life and relegate him to the position of a pauper, the same against the Government may affect the coffers of the Government only to an extent of a drop in an ocean. Hence, the Tribunal Members have greater responsibility to the citizen.

(more…)

The author makes the radical suggestion that the retirement age of judges may be increased …. but wait …. there’s a catch! …. He wants their right to practice before the lower courts to be taken away! Any takers for this suggestion?

1. At present the judges of the Apex court retire at the age of 65, whereas the judges of High Courts and the members of the ITAT retire at the age of 62. Most of the judges of the Apex Court even after retirement render service to the nation by chairing various forums, like Authority for Advance Rulings till the age of 68. Similarly the judges of the High Courts also serve as chairman, president or members of various quasi-judicial forums, like, Administrative Tribunals, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, SEBI Tribunal, etc., where the age limit is 65. When the judges can render service as chairman of various forums and render the Judicial service which they were rendering earlier on the bench there is no reason why the age limit should not be raised. If the Government can retain the services of judges for another three years, it will be a great service to the nation and the pendency of cases before High Courts will reduce.

2. In India many professionals join the judiciary with the intention of serving the nation and not with the intention of getting a permanent job in the Government. A fresh law graduate when he joins a multinational gets much more than a sitting judge of High Court, who may have put in more than 20 years of practice in law. Experience of a judge and his knowledge is an asset to the justice delivery system; hence it is in the interest of the nation to raise the age limit of judges.

(more…)