The Bombay High Court, recently expressed dissatisfaction on the department counsels and asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ), the apex direct tax body to re-consider the practice of appointing its retired officers as department counsels.
“We find in most cases, at least during the final hearing, Revenue’s Counsel are left to fend for themselves and that even papers at times are borrowed from the other side or taken from the Court Records. If the mind set of the Revenue Officer changes and they attend to the case diligently till it is disposed of, only then would it be ensured that the State is properly represented.”
The Court pointed out that some Counsel for the Revenue time and again argue matters before us only for the sake of arguing even when the issue stands concluded or without taking proper instructions in respect of facts as existing i.e. post the passing of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The focus is not on the facts involved in the matter but on arguing point of law.
The bench comprising Justice M S Sanklecha and Justice Sandeep K Shinde found that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. “If this indeed be the practice, it would, in our view, need revisiting the same. This is so, as the skill and conduct required to appear as an Advocate, are honed by working in the chambers of an experienced Advocate, particularly that he is part of a system which seeks to ensure that Justice is achieved, beyond the cause of the client. It is indeed for the CBDT to decide and take appropriate action. Undoubtedly, these retired Officers do have domain expertise and do render assistance. However, the conduct and role of an Advocate is much more than that of being an expert in tax matters. This has to be realized by the domain expert Advocates. An Advocate must have a broader vision and look upon themselves as Officers of the Court, assisting the Court to do justice and not right or wrong, my client is correct as now done by some of the Advocates for the Revenue.”
“We have for a long time, taken into account that many of these are fresh entrants to the bar and in due course, would learn the standard expected of an Advocate. However, to our disappointment, many of them are refusing to learn. Therefore, the CBDT could consider holding of a training programme, where leading Advocates could address the domain expert on the ethics, obligation and standard expected of Advocates before they start representing the State. This is only a suggestion and it is entirely for the CBDT to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Revenue is properly represented to serve the greater cause of justice and fair play.”
“In any case, we would expect the CBDT to lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue’s cause,” the bench added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
