Former Revenue Director Chudamani Sharma Faces Corruption Cases

Kathmandu. Two corruption cases related to illegally acquired 'ill-gotten wealth' and revenue leakage against former Director General of the Inland Revenue Department, Chudamani Sharma, have started being heard at the Special Court. The hearing has begun in the bench of Special Court judges Narayan Prasad Poudel, Hemant Rawal, and Umesh Koirala. Sharma, along with Tax Settlement Commission Chairman Lumbadhwaj Mahat and member Umesh Dhakal, is accused of corruption by granting a tax exemption of 10 billion 2 crore 19 lakh 1 thousand 824 rupees. The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had filed a case, stating that the tax exemption granted by the Tax Settlement Commission was not done with good intentions, and the exempted amount was deemed corrupt. The Special Court had previously convicted Chudamani Sharma and others in this case for revenue leakage. Sharma and others approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Special Court's decision was flawed. On Asar 25, 2082, the bench of Supreme Court Justices Saranga Subedi and Tek Prasad Dhungana, raising questions about a fair hearing and deeming the Special Court's decision flawed, sent the case back to the Special Court for a rehearing. It was found that the Tax Settlement Commission, chaired by Mahat, had maliciously granted tax exemptions and waivers exceeding 10 billion 2 crore rupees to some taxpayers with whom agreements were made for settlement in 2071 BS. Sharma and Dhakal were members of the commission. The CIAA claimed that the revenue that should have come to the state was not collected because the commission, going beyond its mandate, made agreements with taxpayers in a way that benefited themselves. Similarly, on Magh 15 of the same year, 2071 BS, another case was filed against Sharma, who was then the Director General of the Inland Revenue Department, for illegally acquiring wealth. It was found that he had accumulated and spent assets worth more than 7 crore 93 lakh rupees by 073 BS, having entered government service in 045 BS. According to the CIAA's investigation, his legitimate income should have been 3 crore 63 lakh rupees, but the source of more than 4 crore 30 lakh rupees was not identified. In this case, along with Sharma, his wife Kalpana Upreti Sharma was also made a defendant for confiscation purposes, and the CIAA filed the case.