Art of Drafting Letters

 

G.C.Pati started preparing the ground, and brought changes in tax administration for smooth transition to VAT. The Empowered Committee had decided to go for VAT in 2003. The government had not notified the VAT cell, but the commissioner posted me to the Cell. I was doing VAT related work. The commissioner instructed me to draft proposals or letters to the government. I did as instructed.

Everybody had his own style of writing. G.C.Pati wanted the proposals, circulars or letters should be brief, preferably within one or two pages, but it should contain all the points he desired. He believed people did not have the patience or much time to read lengthy discourse in a letter. He used to entrust me with a few drafting. I drafted, and with his corrections, those were sent to government or issued for the department officers.

G. Mohan Kumar succeeded G.C.Pati. He saw one letter drafted by me and remarked, “Is this the way the proposals drafted to send to government?”

I asked, “Sir, how should it be written?”

He explained, “First, you write the present provision. Second, you describe the shortcomings or pitfalls of the provision. Third, you give your suggestion or proposal. Fourth, you mention how our proposal addresses the shortcomings. The sentences should be simple and direct; and writing should be lucid and logical.”

I tried to write as he told.  If the draft was good and it satisfied him, he noted on the file ‘good drafting’ or sometimes, ‘very good drafting’. I often got his encomiums.

Dr. Taradatt saw my draft and said, “Are you writing essay? Write in the first paragraph what we want. Who has the patience to read an essay?”

So I had to write as he desired. He often took copies of the letters by hand and got the things done in the government or finance department.

Tuhin Kanta Pandey had his style. By the time he became the commissioner, computers had completely replaced the typewriters. Pandey insisted on the notifications not only be drafted well, it should look well also. He looked into the fonts and size of fonts also; font size should be twelve and heading should be in fourteen, the matter should have well margin, heading and sub heading written in bold. The letters should be in Ariel, later he changed to Times New Roman. The language, of course, should be lucid.

All the commissioners made changes or corrections in the draft. It’s obvious, most of the times, the proposals were theirs. The bloke who originally drafted might have mistakes, which was natural, and the senior did detect, and correct, like an editor editing an article or a book. But there were a few, who made changes whether it was required or not; they thought they should make some changes, just because they were the boss. They did not touch the subject matter, but only the language.

 Once, one commissioner made some changes; substituted words in some places, changed a few sentences. He went on a tour; the letter could not be issued. Giving effect to the corrections he did, the final corrected letter was put up before him for approval, after he returned from his tour almost a week later. He saw the letter, again made changes in the draft and said, “Sahadev Babu, improve your English standard.”

He had forgotten it was the draft he had corrected and redrafted a week back. Of course, I did not remind him of the fact.

******

An excerpt from the book Anichhuk Prasasak (A Reluctant Bureaucrat)

 

Business People are Cheats, Government Servants are Thieves

 

A Chennai based NGO was sending a few computers to a tribal school located in Western Odisha. Form 402A was required to bring in goods from outside the state. The office issued this form. If the person did not have Form 402A, he had to pay tax at the check post. The objective of the form was to substantiate the goods were not for business purpose. Goods brought in for business were taxable, and for personal use were exempt.

The advocate of the Chennai organisation resided in Bhubaneswar. The town where the school was located was more than four hundred kilometres. The advocate went to the town and reached on Friday. The officer who would issue the forms was absent. He had not taken permission of his higher authority to leave the headquarters, had availed of French leave. The office people told the officer would return on Monday. The advocate did not return to Bhubaneswar again to go on Monday traversing four hundred plus kilometres. He stayed there in a hotel.

The advocate went to the office on Monday. The officer had not returned. The office people told the officer would start his journey from his home that day and reach the office on Tuesday. The advocate waited and went again to the office next day, met the officer and requested to issue the form. The officer said, “The school is not in my jurisdiction; the officer of that area is on leave.”

The advocate argued, “Sir, I have been waiting for the last four days, paying for the hotel for a single form. The officer of that area is on leave, but you are in charge. You should give the forms.”

The officer, irritated, threw the application at the advocate and said, “I shall not give, do what you like.”

The advocate rang up an officer of the head office he knew, told him the situation and requested him to help. The head office officer telephoned to the joint commissioner of the range. The officer issued the form only after the joint commissioner intervened.

 The officer wanted money, had he got he would have issued the form without rancour. But the advocate, after waiting for the officer for four days and paying the hotel bills, felt humiliated and harassed, and did not want to bribe.

The officer had to issue the form under compulsion, but he, out of anger, issued a notice to the head master of the school receiving the computers. He asked the head master to inform him about his sources of income, and submit statement of annual income and expenditure of the school. The head master of the school was not a businessman, the officer did not have the authority to issue notice to him. The head master did not understand law; a notice from a government office was enough to perturb him.

This incident provoked me to write an article. Sambad published the article under the caption, “michha banija, chakara chor” (Business People are Cheats, Government Servants are Thieves) on 17.06.2013. I stressed on three points:

1. The officer has the power to allow the forms, and he has, at the same time, also the scope to misuse the power; that induces an unprincipled officer for rent seeking behaviour.

2. The officer never thinks the organisation he is working for as his own. He is callous of the ill repute the organisation earns for his misdeeds.  He is least bothered.

3. Power arrogates; this officer is so arrogant that he goes beyond his jurisdiction to notice a head master who is in no way concerned with business and VAT law.

I suggested in the article to make available the form 402A online. If issue and obtaining the forms were made online, the person did not need to go to the office, and it would reduce scope of rent seeking.

J.K.Mohapatra, Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Finance read the article from the newspaper and rang up commissioner, Monoj Ahuja to take action against the erring officer on the basis of the allegation. Manoj Ahuja read the article. He asked, “ACS says to take action against the officer. What action we should take?”

I said, “I have neither mentioned the name of the office nor the name of officer in my article. I have pointed out the flaws in the system that encourages this to happen. A phone call,  warning and reprimanding the concerned officer, will suffice. We may go for making the forms online to avoid these embarrassing happenings.”

Commissioner was convinced. He told his OSD (officer on special duty) to reprimand the officer over phone, and ordered for making the forms available online.

This article caused consternation among the officers of CTD and Finance Department. It was usual, people criticised me whenever a newspaper published my articles on tax and tax administration. They did not have guts to speak in front, but spoke behind my back. Those backbiting, however, reached me. I did not care, I wrote, rather they provoked me to write my next piece.

Criticism on this article was most vigorous this time. The reason being, though I did not take names, I had discussed on corruption by the CTD officers. Officers working in the finance department, including my friends in OFS, wanted some action should be taken, I should be punished in some way or other. They did not know the finance secretary had seen the piece and telephoned the commissioner to take action against the delinquent officer.

I had been to the finance department at this time. I met the special secretary. He said, “Do you think we can’t know what you write?”

Sahadev Sahoo, IAS was former chief secretary and vice chancellor, OUAT. He was an acclaimed writer. Often, many confused me with the former chief secretary when any article published by the name Sahadev Sahoo. I said, “I never hide me, my address is always given below the article.” And I asked, “Why do get you so perturbed? Are these concocted?”

The special secretary snapped back, “How can you write against the officers you being yourself an officer of this department?”

I argued, “Where is wrong? When I write against a BDO or police, you don’t react. Then you enjoy, but when it is on you, you shout.”

He remained silent. Finance Department sent a letter with photocopy of the article attached asking the commissioner for his ‘opinion’. Commissioner marked the letter to me to send a reply. We replied steps were being taken to make form 402A available online.

The matter rested there.

One day, after a fortnight or a month of this episode, Manoj Ahuja sent for me and asked, “Will you not be in trouble?”

I did not get, and asked, “What for?”

“Some of your senior officers are annoyed with you for your writings.” He said.

I did not ask who those officers were; I knew them. I said, “Sir I have been writing for the last thirty years. I have not had any till now. Let me see what happens in future.”

Manoj Ahuja smiled. He said, “I am glad that you are writing. Go on, and send me a copy when something you publish.”

*****

 

Yesterday was a Better Day

 

(Speaking in a seminar on VAT in 2005)

A good tax system is that where the government get its due tax with minimum cost of administration and the taxpayers comply with less cost of compliance; the taxpayers are not harassed; the system does not hinder business, but helps growth of industry and economy.

Tax collection registered a good growth rate across the states after introduction of VAT. The average growth rate in collection of sales tax for five years prior to VAT was 11-12% in the country where as the average growth rate in VAT collection of five years after VAT was 16-17%. In Odisha, the average growth rate for five years before VAT was 13% and after VAT, the average growth rate for five years was 19%.  If we take ratio of VAT to GSDP, sales tax collection was 1.8% of GSDP in 2005-06; it increased in VAT to 2.5% of the GSDP in 2012-13.

VAT came into force in 2005. The officers, who had worked fifteen or twenty years in sales tax by 2005, found it difficult to cope with VAT and the ensuing administrative restructuring. They could not resist the changes, but heaved long sighs, and blamed VAT.

I had written an article on the mindset of the officers, their lack of adaptability; analyzing the reforms and its impact, giving comparative collections of tax before and after introduction of VAT. Sambad published the article on 13.02.2014 under the caption; ‘Galakali Bhalathila’ (Yesterday was a Better Day). The article discomfited many senior officers. They did not tell me directly, but there was noisy murmuring that reached me.  One senior officer said, “Why are you writing this stuff? Why don’t you write something else?”

                               (Yesterday was a Better Day by Sahadev Sahoo, Sambad, 13.2.2014)

I am a fictionist; I write stories and novels. Sometimes, on a very few occasions, I write features for the newspapers. I replied, “You don’t read what I really write, my stories and novels. You read only these.” 

In protest, Rabindra Kumar Patnaik wrote one feature, ‘VAT Kete Bhala, Kete Bhela!’(VAT: Good or Bad!), and published it in Sambad on 7.3.2014. His article pleased many senior officers; some of them spoke to me with glee. In fact, they did not understand what I had written or what he wrote, but it was a public protest against my article, published in the newspaper which had published mine. That was enough for their delight. Rabindra Kumar Patnaik was a senior OFS officer. The gist of what he wrote (my translation):

1. ‘Yesterday was a Better day’ is misleading, and an attempt to cover up tax evasion. Selected statistics are taken to prove VAT growth rate. Composition of GDP is not taken, growth of industry and service and their contribution to GDP has not been factored.

2. It is disappointing to note collection of tax during 2013-14 (up to January) has not been considered in the article, he alleges.

3. Patnaik has discussed the less than satisfactory collection of VAT in 2013-14 and cited the illegal mining and the scam during VAT regime.

4. Invoices are not issued hundred percent in VAT and the big business are not also transparent and principled, he accuses.

                            (VAT: Good or Bad! by Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, Sambad Dt.7.3.2014)

The thrust of the article, “Yesterday was a Better Day” was not to discuss tax evasion or GDP growth. The article stressed on the necessity of change of mindset of the officers entrusted with VAT administration. Comparative collection of sales tax and VAT and proportional increase of the VAT collection to GDP cited to prove the point that VAT was doing well; the figures given to indicate the State did not incur loss, rather there was increase of tax collection after introduction of VAT.

Composition of GDP, Patnaik has harped on in his article, is not relevant here. The point here is whether there is proportional increase of VAT collection to the GDP, and it has. Had there was decrease of VAT in ratio to GDP, it would have construed VAT was a failure or VAT had serious shortcomings. He says about growth of service and its share to GDP that has not been factored. His argument is not clear. Sales tax or VAT is collected on sale of goods, not on services. Centre collected service tax, which was not in the state’s domain. As per his argument, if we deduct service component from GDP, since VAT is not levied on services, the proportional increase of VAT to GDP would be rather more, and it would bolster the argument that VAT was successful. Of course, analysis is not done the way he hinted. 

He mentions the much talked about mining scam and illegal mining, and says during VAT period, mining scam of more than rupees sixty thousand crore has taken place. What is the relation of theft or robbery to VAT? Mining pilferage takes place in violation of forest or mining law. VAT and for that matter, any taxation law cannot do away with all the crimes and corruption in the society.

He says the dealers do not issue bills and big businesses are also not transparent and principled. It can also be argued, on the other hand, dealers did not also issue bills in the sales tax regime. The officers were also not honest, paragons of virtue, men of principles. The Supreme Court, in a case in 2010 has remarked, the most corrupt departments in India are income tax, sales tax and excise departments. Compared to sales tax, compliance in VAT was definitely better.

No tax system is flawless. Every tax law has its shortcomings.  “Yesterday was a Better Day” was an attempt to compare VAT with sales tax to prove VAT was better than sales tax. Arindam Dasgupta makes a study of VAT in twenty nine states, and analyses VAT collection with reference to GSDP in an article, An Assessment of the Revenue Impact of State Level VAT in India, published in Economic and Political Weekly (Vol.47, Issue No. 10, March 10, 2012). He has found positive impact of VAT on states’ revenue, particularly in Haryana and Odisha (Page-21). Md. Ajam Khan and Nagma Sadab of Economics Department, Aligarh Muslim University has also similar view and has mentioned quoting audit reports, “The cost of collection of sales tax/VAT is less than Indian average due to the voluntary compliance mechanism of OVAT Act and efficient tax administration.” (Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, January-June, 2013. Page-47).

                    (VAT may have flaws, but it is better. by Sahadev Sahoo, Sambad dt.19.3.2014)

I wrote a rejoinder against the article of Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, which Sambad published in its opinion page on 19.03.2014 under the caption, VAT byabastare kichhi truti thaipare, kintu a byabasta bhala, (VAT may have some flaws, but it is better).

Rabindra Kumar Patnaik was director, MIAF. I had been taking class in MIAF as a guest faculty since 2000. But after “Yesterday was a Better Day” was published, MIAF stopped inviting me to take class. Again, I got invitation after Patnaik’s transfer.

*****

 

A Reluctant Bureaucrat

 

I had the impression when I was in school or college, great men write autobiography, those who have made names in national or international field; they have contribution to society in any field, like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru or Bertrand Russell. Our teacher advice to read biography and autobiography, their life and achievement inspire, motivate to be a good human being or a great man. I am fond of reading biography and autobiography, not to become a good human being or a great man, but I have curiosity to know their life and time, their experience, and the society they live in, and simply enjoy reading their stories. I try to understand them, their philosophy of life, to imagine the society they lived in; I derive pleasure.

In course of time, my idea of an autobiography changed. Everybody’s life, his journey in the society is unique. A man has his own experience and realization, which are different from that of others. Their autobiographies, stories of their lives, contribute to the collective wisdom of the society. The reader has the opportunity to understand persons of different classes or living in different strata. I believe, every person, whatever may be his position in the society, whichever class he may be in, should write his autobiography. Life Less Ordinary of Baby Haldar, a domestic help, The Autobiography of a Sex Worker by Nalini Jameela, Amen: The autobiography of a Nun by Sister Jesme, The Truth about Me: A Hijra Life Story by A. Revathi, to give examples of a few, are good reads and best sellers.

One day I decide to write my story. I am an ordinary person; doing a job for my living. I have retired from government service after I have served thirty years in Odisha Finance Service. One of my seniors teases, “What is a government? Who is he? Is it the secretariat building or the Chief Minister or the Cabinet? Government is you, me, Deputy Secretary Parija or Secretary Tripathy. The things you, I or they do is what the Government do.”

The story I have written cannot be, in true sense, called my autobiography or memoirs. In this story I am just a character, rather, the protagonist in an autobiographical novel. It’s an attempt to portray what I have witnessed and experienced as a government servant, how the system works, who really does and how he decides.

During my tenure in office, the government brought the greatest reforms in the field of indirect tax structure in the country. VAT (Value Added Tax) replaced the state sales tax in 2005; GST (Goods and Services Tax) replaced a plethora of state taxes like VAT, Entry Tax, Central Sales Tax, etc and Central Taxes like Excise Duty, Service Tax, etc. Great changes took place in the tax administration. I had an active participation and association in implementation of VAT and later, GST in the state. I was involved in policy making process both in the state and at national level. I have reflected my take on the reforms and the process of their implementation in the book.

One day I met Das Behnur, an eminent writer in a marriage reception. He asked me what I was doing at the time. I told I was writing my memoirs, and had submitted the first chapter to a magazine. He said, “Don’t publish the chapters in advance. You finish the book and then, publish. If you publish chapters in advance, you will get a number of phone calls and letters. That will impact your writing. You will lose objectivity. You may be afraid of writing what you intend to speak.”

But I had already submitted. The magazine published. I got a huge number of phone calls in praise and a few calls critical of it. The critical callers were my former colleagues. Some of them who had worked with me in some or other office, and I considered them my friends, were annoyed, and almost severed their relations, whatever they had with me. I remembered Das Behnur and stopped giving the chapters in advance to the magazines, though they (magazines) asked me for the other chapters. Some of my friends and colleagues of the organisation I was working are not willing to take it a story; a critique on a system, and is not against any individual.

*****