The SC Asks Centre To Set Up A System To Track All Revenue -Cases

CASE BACKGROUND

• Justices D. Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah stated that it was necessary to set up a monitored system to track the movement of the cases between the arbitrator and the court, including all direct and indirect judgments regarding the revenue department of the Central Government.
• Technical tools to monitor income procedures and trials at all levels would ultimately save the legitimate benefits of the Government.
• The Government was asked to monitor that demand in a very efficient way with all steps, and was stated to be able to do so.
• This was ordered for the benefit of the whole country, and for the revenue department.
• The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Government, stated that it would be done as to give some guarantee.

CASE RELEVANCE

• It was noted that this would impose the Government's intention to take into account the interests of the business community as such a technical solution promotes a business environment in that country.
• The Supreme Court would be integrating the whole revenue network, especially after the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) and hence, the need here must be of a robust technical system.
• On the other hand, while listening to the appeals filed before February, the appeals were seen as gross delays as they were presented by indirect taxation which was not reliable.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• On Thursday, Mehta agreed with the bank's opinion that the proposal to establish a sound system was in good faith, and added that it had begun the integration of the Legal Information Management and Information System (LIMBS) with the office system.
• The Electronic Office (NIC) of the National Computer Centre guaranteed that once a judgment is pronounced in any court, the same would be processed immediately in the electronic office system.
• Mr. Mehta also pointed out that although LIMBS records the duration of each law suit, from the filing of the petition to the final order, it does not record the process between the order of the lower court and the decision of the higher court to challenge or not challenge the order.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?