Convenient transfer in an inconvenient case?

A member of the I-T Settlement Commission was abruptly moved out just days before the Sahara hearing

January 08, 2017 12:48 am | Updated November 28, 2021 10:11 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

According to filings before the Delhi High Court, even as the Sahara group’s application was being heard by the ITSC, a parallel legal fight broke out over the sudden transfer of the member. A view of the Delhi High Court building.

According to filings before the Delhi High Court, even as the Sahara group’s application was being heard by the ITSC, a parallel legal fight broke out over the sudden transfer of the member. A view of the Delhi High Court building.

Just days before the Sahara group’s application came up before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), which granted immunity to the business group after a quick hearing, one of the Commission’s members was abruptly transferred out.

According to filings before the Delhi High Court, even as the Sahara group’s application was being heard by the ITSC, a parallel legal fight broke out over the sudden transfer of the member.

Baldip Singh Sandhu, an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer of the 1981 batch, who was moved out, told The Hindu : “My case is before the Delhi High Court. The court will find out why I was illegally and abruptly transferred out.”

The New Delhi-based principal Bench of the ITSC on November 10 issued an order granting the Sahara group immunity from prosecution and penalty.

The ITSC agreed with Sahara’s claim that the Income Tax Department failed to prove the authenticity of the loose sheets of paper recovered during a raid on its premises, showing massive payments to several politicians — including Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he was the Gujarat Chief Minister.

Sandhu’s contention

Mr. Sandhu, who retired on November 30, 2015 as the Chief Commissioner (Income Tax), Kolkata, was appointed in March 2016 as a member of the ITSC in the national capital. He was appointed to the principal bench headed by the ITSC chairman.

Sudden order

However, on July 19, he was transferred out to Chennai, though the Settlement Commission appointment was location-specific and non-transferable.

According to sources in the ITSC, Mr. Sandhu was relieved the very same day, and an under-secretary from the Finance Ministry came to the Commission to serve him the order.

Justice Najmi Waziri of the Delhi High Court, in an order on October 27, stayed the transfer of Mr. Sandhu, saying: “The court is prima facie of the view that the petitioner having specified his candidature only for the vacancies at the principal Bench, New Delhi and for the Additional Bench, Mumbai and his having joined at the Principal Bench, New Delhi, he cannot now be transferred to the Additional Bench, Chennai; the appointment is against a particular vacancy and the appointee is not transferable to another vacancy that may have arisen, without the consent of the appointee.”

According to sources, when he returned to the Commission, Mr. Sandhu was made to sit in the visiting room of the Commission for three days, after which he took medical leave.

The Central government then moved a Letter Patents Appeal before a two-member Bench of Delhi High Court, led by the Chief Justice.

Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central government; Mr. Sandhu was not represented during the hearing, and a stay was granted on the Single-Bench stay given to Mr. Sandhu.

The case is now being heard by a single member Bench of the High Court. On November 30, the Bench gave the Central government two weeks’ time to respond to Mr. Sandhu’s appeal against the stay on the original stay. So far, the Centre has not filed a reply, court sources said.

The original jurisdiction over the Sahara group, with its headquarters at Lucknow, rested with the Additional Bench II of the ITSC. When the group filed its settlement petition before this Bench in August, it was rejected.

Fresh plea

Later, Sahara put up an application before the chairman, ITSC, seeking transfer of the case to the principal Bench, where Mr. Sandhu was one of the three members. A few days after Mr. Sandhu was transferred, the principal Bench began hearing the case.

In August, the case was admitted, and in Stage II, the department filed its reply and the ITSC decided to go ahead with the case. By November 10, the final order was issued.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.