16.33 hrs.
STATUTORY RESOLUTION RE: DISAPPROVAL OF
NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL ORDINANCE , 2003
AND
NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL BILL, 2003
Title: Combined discussion on the statutory resolution regarding disapproval of National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, 2003 moved by Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal and consideration of the National Tax Tribunal Bill, 2003, moved by Shri P.C. Thomas. (Not concluded)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, we will take up item Nos. 14 and 15 together. Shri Basu Deb Acharia, Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi and Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi are not here. Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal.
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): Sir, I beg to move:
“That this house disapproves of the National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, 2003 (No. 3 of 2003) promulgated by the President on 16 October, 2003.”
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI P.C. THOMAS): Sir, on behalf of Shri Arun Jaitley, I beg to move: *
“That the Bill to provide for the adjudication by the National Tax Tribunal of disputes with respect to levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of direct taxes and also to provide for the adjudication by that Tribunal of disputes with respect to the determination of the rates of duties of customs and central excise on goods and the valuation of goods for the purposes of assessment of such duties as well as in matters relating to levy of tax on service, in pursuance of article 323B of the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration.”
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL: Sir, there are compelling circumstances and reasons which have motivated me to move this Resolution urging the House to disapprove the National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, 2003. I am sorry to point out that this seems to have become the practice of this Government to circumvent the procedure of the House and rule through Ordinances. I said that the other day. In this particular case, I say it with much greater emphasis.
* Moved with the recommendation of the President.
Sir, as you know, the House has a well established practice now duly fortified by the rules that all the substantive Bills go to the Standing Committees to enable the Standing Committees to discuss those Bills at length. There, we sit in the Standing Committee, discuss the matter, cutting across party lines, deliberate upon the clauses of the Bill, the wordings of the provisions of the Bill and then talk to other people, the stake holders, the persons concerned with the subject and then come to a decision and report that to the Parliament through a Report. Thereafter, based on the recommendations or the amendments suggested by the Standing Committee, the House deliberates thereon and takes the final decision.
Sir, that is – I am sure, the hon. Minister would also agree with me – the practice. The only deviation is, and that has also been accepted by this House, where the Government says that this Bill is just of a very casual nature, only a small amendment here and small amendment there is called for and if these Bills were to be referred to the Standing Committees much time would be taken therein and that might, in fact, frustrate the very objective of the Bill. We have accepted that position and taken up for discussion various Bills here though, strictly speaking, even those Bills should have gone to the Standing Committees.
Now, in this particular case, this is a new Bill, introducing a new concept, wanting to introduce a new forum for decision of matters relating to taxes, all the disputes relating to taxes. Earlier after the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal etc., the appeals would go to the High Court. Now that provision of appealing to the High Court is being sought to be substituted by the National Tax Tribunal, a very substantive change in the law followed hence till this date.
Please see the statement explaining the circumstances which had necessitated legislation by the National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, which has to be the rarest of rare routes to be followed by the Government. Here casually they are doing it. There is a three-para statement giving the reasons where the Chowksy Committee and the Law Commission of India had recommended the setting up of tax courts, which they feel, with all the trappings of the court, would again delay the matter, therefore, the Tribunal, under article 323 (b).
Having said that, now, see the last para, only three lines. Please permit me to quote that.
“As huge revenue is blocked in litigation because of pendency of appeal and reference is before the High Court, which has adverse affect on the national economy, immediate action was taken.”
Now, they are arrogating to themselves the power that way.
“Immediate action was taken by promulgating the National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, 2003 so that the said Tribunal is established at the earliest to take up pending matters before the High Court.”
Have they set up the courts? Have they set up the Tribunal within this period? If the Tribunal has been set up, which are the cases which have been referred to the Tribunal? If the cases have been referred to the Tribunal, what is the number of cases which the Tribunal has decided during this period since the day this Ordinance was passed? What for was this Ordinance promulgated? With utmost respect, going all the way out to assure the House, to assure the hon. Minister that we mean to assist the Government in passing the law, but at the same time, the due procedure has to be followed.
Sir, sitting here, I was reading the Bill. With all respect to the people who have taken pains to draft this, I find mistakes in the Bill, mistakes of drafting of language also in this Bill. Now, we will just discuss it in half an hour or one hour and this Bill will be passed. I would urge that this matter should not be taken up and it should be deferred and this matter should go to the Business Advisory Committee. In the Business Advisory Committee, we should discuss this matter. Heavens are not going to fall if this Ordinance lapses. Often we find this argument from the Government, ‘Oh, this is a constitutional provision. If this Bill is not passed in so many days, it would lapse.’ Nothing is going to happen if this Ordinance lapses, unless the Minister stands up and tell me that the Tribunal has been constituted.
Sir, I would urge with all humility that this matter should not be taken up, and this Ordinance should be allowed to lapse. The Bill may be introduced. The Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Finance for discussion at length, and then only the Bill should be passed. That is the way the Parliament should function. We should not rush through the provisions like this where the jurisdiction of the High Court is being ousted for the sake of tribunals. I am not expressing my opinion on the merits, I am saying about the procedure. This is undue, indecent haste which this Government is showing in this matter and this Bill should not be taken up for consideration. I oppose the Ordinance.
: As has been rightly shown by hon. Shri Bansal, this is a new Bill which proposes to set up a National Tax Tribunal, in order to hand over the cases that are pending before the hon. High Courts to this Tribunal. The number of the cases which are pending before the High Courts has increased like anything and the disposals are only very little compared to the number of … (Interruptions)
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : Please tell us what have you done after 16th of October? What was the urgency?
SHRI P.C. THOMAS: Let me complete first. I am coming to the urgency.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Let him complete.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN(CHIRAYINKIL) : You do not have any urgency.… (Interruptions)
SHRI P.C. THOMAS: I am coming to the urgency.… (Interruptions)
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : You have slept over this matter for five years. What is the urgency that it has crept up immediately?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Bansal, you are a senior Member. Please take your seat.
SHRI P.C. THOMAS: Then you might have slept because in 1992 itself there was a report. It appears that people might have slept in this case … ()