TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Official's Suspension Challenge Dismissed: Court Sets Four-Week Timeline for GST Misconduct Inquiry Resolution</h1> <h3>Kuldeep Sing Versus State of U.P. And 4 Others</h3> Kuldeep Sing Versus State of U.P. And 4 Others - 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 169 (All.) Issues:1. Suspension order challenge2. Legality of penalty imposed under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 20173. Judicial review based on misconduct allegations4. Suspension revocation requestSuspension Order Challenge:The writ petition challenges the suspension order dated 07.01.2022. The Court noted the interception of vehicles without proper documentation, leading to seizures and penalties imposed by the petitioner. Discrepancies between documents shown by the driver and GST records were highlighted. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued against the use of Section 161, suggesting appeals under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court sought clarification on the choice of action and directed the Standing Counsel to file an affidavit. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings.Legality of Penalty Imposed:The petitioner's counsel argued that the penalties imposed were lawful under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, emphasizing the absence of misconduct. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment regarding baseless charges and judicial review. The Standing Counsel for State-Respondents mentioned the ongoing inquiry process following a charge sheet served on the petitioner in March 2022. The Court, without delving into the case's merits, disposed of the writ petition with a directive regarding the suspension order's status pending the conclusion of the departmental proceeding.Judicial Review Based on Misconduct Allegations:The petitioner's counsel contended that the penalties imposed did not indicate misconduct, citing the imposition of maximum penalty as evidence. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment to support the argument that baseless charges warrant judicial review. The State-Respondents' Standing Counsel informed the Court about the ongoing inquiry and the timeline for its conclusion. The petitioner requested the revocation of the suspension, highlighting the duration of suspension since January 2022.Suspension Revocation Request:Considering the submissions made, the Court disposed of the writ petition without assessing the case's merits. The directive stipulated that if the departmental proceeding remains unresolved within four weeks and there is no allegation of non-cooperation by the petitioner, the suspension order dated 07.01.2022 would be deemed inoperative or under abeyance until the inquiry concludes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
