Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Error apparent on record -rectification applications under sec 74 of Finance Act,1994.

Ajit Ramakrishnan
Authorities Urged to Address Section 74 Oversight, Restore Dismissed Appeals, and Facilitate Justice and Business Operations Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, provides a mechanism for rectifying errors in orders issued under the Act, applicable to both the department and clients. Despite this, quasi-judicial authorities often ignore client applications under this section. In 2014, a mandatory pre-deposit was introduced, leading to the dismissal of many appeals filed without it. Some appeals were restored upon compliance, but others remain unresolved due to authorities' inaction. This has prevented clients from pursuing further appeals, and the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme was unavailable to them. The article calls for authorities to address these issues to uphold justice and facilitate business operations. (AI Summary)

As all are aware,the section 74 of FA,1994 is a self contained provision envisaged as a simplified method to get the errors in any orders issued under the said Act.This provision can be invoked alike by department as well as clients.However,in practice the applications filed as per sec 74 by the clients are not entertained by the quasi judicial authorities.

In Sept 2014 ,the  condition of pre deposit  7.5/10% of tax involved was made mandatory.A large number of appeals filed during the interragnum period without the pre deposit  was dismissed ex parte,even without even giving a notice or hearing.Hundreds of appeals were disposed by this gillatin method in one stroke.Some of the Appeal Commissioners allowed in their orders on application filed as per sec 74.The appeals were restored after making the pre deposit within a notified period.The clients were therefore able to get their appeals decided on merits.

Strangely,some Commissioner(Appeals) have never bothered to attend to or reply the applications filed under section 74 against such ex parte orders.Even applications filed enclosing the mandatory  pre deposit Challans remain in attended.

This has resulted in an anomalous situation as the clients are unable to approach the CESTAT now,as the time limit for filing appeal against the ex parte orders have lapsed.Even the scheme of SVLDRS,2019 could not be availed in such cases.

It is hightime that the buerocratic indifference by the Departmental authorities in such matters are put to rest.Authorities without basic respect to rule of law like principles of natural justice,judicial descipline to abide by settled case laws etc are the main contributors to the large number of appeals in CESTAT benches.

Even the departmental mechanism for review of orders passed has been made a farce with Boards instructions that only orders against revenue need be subjected to review!!

If the basic violations of exparte orders without hearing are ordered to be rectified in the Review orders,it would be an example of assessee friendly approach for ease of doing business.

A stock taking of pending applications filed as per sec 74 before various quasi judicial authorities is the need of the hour  It would go a long way in the closure of pre GST disputes ,Eve though after almost 4 years !!

Will the Board come out with suitable  instructions to dispose such ROM Applications  filed under sec 74 strictly adhering to afford a hearing etc.

------

Unnikrishnan V.

Superintendent Retd,Cochin.

[email protected]

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles