As the financial year draws to a close, bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, institutions, push themselves to achieve targets. This year is no different. Normally targets are quantitative and not qualitative, and very rarely does one look at the manner in which these goals are achieved.
The Vodafone judgment was a huge jolt to the government and the already elusive direct tax target now looks impossible. Pressure from the ministry coupled with statements that future postings of taxmen would depend on the collection they achieved, galvanized them into action. In the past month or so, we have seen stringent , at times coercive action for recovery of taxes. While one accepts that the government must collect the tax that is due, and it is the duty of every citizen to pay the same, it cannot be forgotten that the law prescribes a process for ascertaining what tax is “due”. Much before the first appeal is heard an assesse is expected to pay 50% of the tax as per the assessment order. It is a well established judicial principle that when collecting such tax before the final stage of its determination one has to see the balance of convenience. This is very rarely done. Going by the number of cases that go in the assessee’s favour at the various stages of appeal, particularly at the tribunal, this interim collection becomes refundable. In these situations collecting officials must take responsibility and be accountable for coercive collection of taxes. What is required is humane approach in recovery matters.
While this form of active recovery is not new to tax payers, the “indirect” recovery by way of adjustment of refunds, is like an epidemic that has spread to all parts of the country. The culpability for this lies entirely with the Income tax department. The computerized processing centre ‘CPC’ where all electronically filed returns are processed is accessing a data base which is totally different from the one being used by assessing officers in the field. In these cases the errors in assessment orders have been rectified or effects of appeal have been given by the assessing officers and in some cases consequential refunds have also been issued. However the data base furnished to the CPC has not been updated. The result is an unwarranted adjustment of refunds due against non-existing demands. When one tries approaching one authority to get the error committed by the other rectified, the blame game starts with each justifying its action. It is like two different doctors prescribing two different therapies based on two distinct reports pertaining to the same patient. The consequence is unbearable pain and anguish for the patient. It will be of little solace to him that it was the two different reports and not the skill or ability of the medico that was to blame. It is here that those responsible must be held accountable.
The illustration in the paragraphs above is regarding tax authorities because we, as professionals, interact with them every day. However, this attitude of those who enjoy power either as government officials or as elected representatives of the people pervades every walk of life. When one complains of the poor state of roads, we find one authority blaming the other. When a pedestrian falls into a ditch and loses a limb it is of little concern to him whether the Mumbai Municipal Corporation or the Mumbai Metropolitan Road Development Authority is responsible. What he requires are walkable and motorable roads.
In this context one really envies the position of the Indian bureaucrat. This is because once he joins the service he enjoys virtual immunity from any punitive or disciplinary action. Even when such action is taken it takes an unduly long time for any disciplinary action to reach its logical conclusion. We tend to criticise politicians but they have to face the public in every election and can be held accountable at that time. While saying that one must hold the politicians responsible, it is necessary that citizens do their mite. It was extremely disappointing to note that after a campaign by the government as well as efforts by NGOS, the voting percentage in the recently concluded municipal election in Mumbai was approximately, an abysmal 50%. During a number of discussions and debates the refrain of a large number of educated voters was that they did not vote because they did not find any candidate worthy of their vote. Though I personally do not subscribe to this thought process, I think it will be worthwhile to give the voter the option of rejecting all the candidates. This will enable the electorate to express their disapproval of the candidates put up by political parties.
If this situation is to undergo a change the process of investigation must become transparent and that of dispensing justice must be expedited. It is only when citizens demand from authorities an account of their performance and erring authorities are held accountable, will democracy be strengthened. It is disturbing to note that many a relevant document or paper which will be material evidence goes “missing“ from government records. This has become a regular feature with the missing papers in the Adarsh scam being a recent example. Even if a person does not get justice on this planet he can expect it in life beyond. One only hopes that the greatest accountant of them all Chitragupt, keeps his books and record safe and secure, for no one can underestimate the reach of the wily Indian politician and bureaucrat!
