Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (LKS) has been accused by service tax authorities of forum shopping and misleading the the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by allegedly not disclosing the existence of a live Supreme Court case for the same client on the same issues.
LKS had appealed a tax tribunal order both in the Supreme Court and the CESTAT for a software developer client, according to The Economic Times.
However, according to the service tax authorities’ complaint, LKS advocates BL Narasimhan and MP Devnath had won before the CESTAT after appearing on 2 August, but neither the firm nor the tribunal’s own its registry ever told it that the same case was also being heard by the Supreme Court, where LKS’ V Lakshmikumaran, L Charnya, Aditya Bhattacharya, Hemant Bajaj, Anand K and MP Devnath had appeared on 8 July.
The principal commission of the Service Tax Commissionerate claimed in an application to CESTAT that “Mr Narasimhan was duty-bound to inform CESTAT that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already passed an order on 08.07.2016, which he did not”, which meant that the tribunal had no more jurisdiction to hear the application.
Therefore “it is not a legally acceptable/tolerable act of the appellant. It appears that the act was done consciously and deliberately to mislead the two judicial bodies”, according to the complaint.
LKS managing partner V Lakshmikumaran denied any wrongdoing, telling the ET via email: “I have examined the matter. Contentions raised by the service tax department are factually and legally incorrect. The matter is sub judice.”
Meanwhile, former solicitor general M Parasaran commented to the ET: “This case is much more serious than forum shopping - it is tantamount to fraud. You suppress facts from the tribunal and get a favourable order by deceit - it is fraud and contempt of court.”
Much more details and background to the charges at The Economic Times.
Comments
but, vlk is smart enough to findcreate some loop whole to justify this.
Don't think anyone's reputation is being 'washed away' with this, but ST department filing such a complaint is certainly newsworthy and I look forward to seeing LKS' full explanation and defence.
Silent whispers doing rounds at CESTAT have come out in open. Anyone who practices at CESTAT knows how registries are managed, few lawyers walk into chambers as if on a stroll in their kitchen garden and snide remarks are extended for other fresh faces.
All by few firms / individuals who manage the system!!
I am glad that the lid has come off!!
We can all be in such a position. Remember the Amarchand affidavit fiasco? I hope the associates won't have to take the blame (the Amarchand partner continues to be useless). We should also patiently wait and see how much of case can be made by the authority.
Lets be clear about certain things. I am sure everyone is aware of the Make My Trip Order. Basically the Department is bewildered after VLK caught them by their ***** before Delhi HC. AG was shouting at the top of his voice and pleading before Supreme Court to stay the Delhi HC order.
This is purely vindictive by the Department and those who are jealous of the success of VLK & team. Last year VLK succeeded in more than 95% of the matters listed before the Special Tax Bench of Justice Sikri and Justice Nariman.
People like R.K. Jain, Editor ELT & STR, has this well known issue with VLK & Team. He uses RTI to harass members of Bar & Bench. Economic Times should come forward with the name of the informer in this matter and I can assure you it will be none other than R.K. Jain.
Similarly, the Govt. DR Govind Dixit, is known in CESTAT Bar for getting trashed during the course of arguments against VLK and B.L. Narasimhan almost on daily basis.
Testimony of these persons is totally unreliable.
The aforementioned facts can be verified from anyone who practices before CESTAT.
May the force be with you (VLK, BLN and team)
Well Wishers
Prithvi Raj Sikka
Anyways, the problem is not their success rate....they are respected for what they do.
But this is symbolic of the manner in which CESTAT registry and benches are influenced!!
So far only the conjectures have been made, nothing on the legality of the matter....Let us see some light on why no wrong has been done and how the CESTAT order would override the SC order.
Anyway, more substantively, have reached out to V Lakshmikumaran on this but obviously he can't comment beyond what he's told the ET since its sub judice, etc.
In the meantime, sure, theoretically if we had nothing else to do, we could do a lot of extra digging beyond what ET has done and maybe we'd find out one or two more nuggets of information.
But we have a couple of other stories to do and I assume LKS' appeal won't take too long and will contain all details in full, which we hope to report then.
If you have any documents or evidence you wish to share with us in the meantime, feel free to do so, of course, at the usual address and we'll take a look...
More revealing are the comments condoning such conduct...and we moan about corruption destroying the country!
First, SC. From what I know, the Rectification of Mistake was part of the Appeal filed before SC. Also, an interim application was filed by VLK & team informing the CESTAT order (the controversial one) much before the Department raised an objection. So basically SC has been kept informed of each and every step. Thus, No concealment, no forum shopping.
Second, CESTAT. Even if the information regarding proceedings before SC was provided to CESTAT, it would have not legally affected the decision of CESTAT, as the SC order was merely an interim order.
Third, way forward. SC will take a call on the interim application filed and decide whether it wants to modify its order or not. If no modification is required, then the Revenue Department will gets it share and the VLK's client will have to deposit it.
So basically, Chill. Wait and watch.
Order a martini. shaken, not stirred.
Any updates? I thought u would be religiously following this story. But I think like all other news agencies you don't wanna make an effort.
Disappointed.