Friday 2 March 2012

Concern expressed at “mutual acrimony” between Members of Chandigarh Bench

D.K.Srivastava vs. UOI & Ors (Central Administrative Tribunal)


The Applicant, an Accountant Member of the Tribunal, was transferred from Chandigarh to Rajkot. He challenged the transfer on the ground that it was punitive and had arisen because of a complaint against him by a Judicial Member. It was alleged that the Sr. VP, who decided the complaint, had indicted him without a hearing and that the said VP was part of the Collegium which had recommended the transfer. In turn, the Judicial Member alleged that she had been subjected to harassment by the Applicant and other Members of the Chandigarh Bench. She claimed that she had heard a bunch of appeals with the Applicant and that though she had drafted the judgement, the Applicant did not sign it till he sat on another Bench and decided another bunch of appeals by taking a contrary view to the view taken by her. She claimed that the Applicant had “purposely” kept the draft judgement in abeyance in order to be able to take a different view in another Bench while the Applicant alleged that there was something “extra judicial in her mind“. HELD by the CAT, dismissing the application:

No comments:

HC upholds validity of provisions restricting ITC where supplies are taxed under RCM

  This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] dealing with the issue of denial of input tax credit (ITC) ...