It is not very often that a small scale industrialist fights corruption and comes out on top. Here is a story.
Popatbhai Patel is an M Sc Tech. from University Department of Chemical technology (UDCT), Bombay, now running a small scale industry at Baroda. He manufactures bulk drugs and exports his entire production. He claimed refund of Cenvat credit unutilised due to export under bond/undertaking.
His jurisdictional central excise authorities delayed grant of refund. Popatbhai met the concerned officers to expedite his refund but he refused to give bribes. The concerned superintendent and deputy commissioner delayed the payment as long as they could. Then, the deputy Commissioner sanctioned the claim but adjusted a part of the refund against alleged dues of another firm where Popatbhai was a partner. Later, the refund cheque was made out for reduced amount but Popatbhai was told that he would not get the cheque unless he paid bribes.
More From This Section
Popatbhai complained in writing to the Commissioner naming the concerned officers as corrupt. He also filed a grievance petition. The cheque was delivered to Popatbhai but the Commissioner declined to allow interest for the delayed payment or interfere with the deputy commissioner's order adjusting part of the refund amount against the alleged dues of another firm.
Popatbhai appealed against the decision and got a favourable order. Once again, the concerned officials refused to give the cheque for the adjusted amount or pay interest, unless they got their bribes.
Popatbhai moved the Gujarat High Court for justice. The division bench of the high court ordered the adjusted amount to be paid within seven days.
The court further ordered that the department should recover interest for the delayed payment and costs of the suit from the concerned officers and pay Popatbhai. The court also ordered that a departmental enquiry must be initiated against the concerned officers and a report must be given to the court within six months. The court also indicted the commissioner for not taking action on the complaint from Popatbhai and for not attending to his grievance petition.
During the court proceedings, the government pleader tried to tell the court that in most cases, the assessees have no problem and that this must be a rare case, where the department had delayed payment. The court snapped back that in most cases of harassment and corruption, the assessees succumb and that this is a rare case when the assessee has approached the court for justice.
The strange aspect of the entire episode is that Popatbhai sent copy of his complaint naming specific officials who were demanding bribes to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). Yet, no one bothered. Even now, it is doubtful whether the CBEC will take any action against the concerned Commissioner or the deputy commissioner or the superintendent. From top to bottom, there is a vested interest to protect the corrupt.
It is also worth noting that the local trade associations also did not bother to take up the case of Popatbhai. The office bearers of the trade associations were too keen on good relations with the Central Excise officials so that their own business interests would not be upset.
Hopefully, more entrepreneurs will follow the example of Popatbhai and fight corruption rather than succumb to corrupt practices.