Following
the submission of the inquiry report, the Department of Excise
and Taxation has served a show-cause notice on the
tribunal’s vice-chairman P.S. Bajaj and its member Kuldip
Kumar.
Justice
Aggarwal submitted his findings in the 12-page inquiry report
to the Punjab government yesterday and has further recommended
that the case in question in which the two officials
“reversed their earlier order for some consideration” be
handed over to the director, Vigilance Bureau, for further
action.
Meanwhile,
the department of excise and taxation, vide memo no
6/8/2008-ET-I (5) dated 29-5-2008, has served a show-cause
notice on both vice-chairman Bajaj and Kuldip Kumar, asking
them to furnish their reply within five days.
The
two have been specifically charged for causing a loss of about
Rs 1 crore to the state exchequer.
The
show-cause notice served on the two has sought reasons “as
to why you should not be removed from the office as
vice-chairman /member”. Sources in the Excise and Taxation
Department disclosed that after the irregularity in a
particular appeal in a case M/S Shreyans Industries Ltd.
Ahmedgarh District Sangrur Vs State of Punjab were detected,
the case was referred to the office of the Advocate-General,
Punjab.
Advocate-General
Hardev Singh Mattewal was of the opinion that the chairman
himself should conduct the inquiry, following which the Punjab
Government marked the inquiry to Justice Aggarwal, asking him
to conduct it expeditiously.
In
the notice, the vice-chairman and the member have been told,
“The state government has carefully pursued the aforesaid
inquiry report and after due application has concluded that
your acts have been such as to render you unfit to continue as
vice-chairman/member of the tribunal.”
In
the report, Justice Aggarwal has said, “P.S.Bajaj had been a
Judicial Officer in the State of Punjab and Member Judicial,
Customs, Excise and taxation and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Ministry of Finance, whereas Kuldip Kumar has been
Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner…both of them
could very well know that order…. whereby rectification
application was allowed and appeal accepted by recalling an
earlier order was sitting in appeal over own judgement and
setting aside own judgement under the garb of rectification
was not permissible….. In this process, State has been put
to a revenue loss of about Rs 1 crore.”
Justice
Aggarwal goes on to say: “The ultimate conclusion can only
be and is that the act of Bajaj and Kuldip Kumar in passing
the order was doing it for some extraneous consideration
whereby a loss of about Rs 1 crore has been caused to the
state. When any individual passes such an order, there can
always be presumption of extraneous consideration, which
amounts to misconduct within the meaning of clause (d) of sub
section 10 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005.”
S
