Mere procedural error does not prove mala fides: adverse strictures against a tax were set aside.

Mere illegality or procedural error in assessment proceedings does not, by itself, justify adverse personal strictures, findings of mala fides, or lack of good faith against a statutory authority. In this case, service of notice, change of business address, and ex parte assessment actions were disputed under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, but the Court found that the assessing authority had acted on the registered address and attempted service at the available places. The impugned adverse remarks, strictures, and connected cost directions were therefore not justified and were set aside, with the treatment of costs modified as directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse observations, strictures and costs imposed against the assessing authority were warranted, and whether the impugned parts of the orders should be expunged.

Analysis: The impugned findings arose from assessment proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, where notice service, change of business address, and consequent ex parte assessment and recovery actions were in dispute. The Court held that, even if the assessing authority's actions were irregular, erroneous or not strictly in accordance with law, that by itself did not establish deliberate conduct, malice, or absence of good faith. For attributing such motives to a statutory authority, something more than mere error or procedural lapse was required. The Court also noted that the assessing authority had acted on the registered address available on record and had attempted service at the stated places, while the later order had been withdrawn after the change of address was accepted.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks, strictures and the questioned cost-related directions against the appellant were not justified and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of removing the personal strictures and connected directions against the appellant, while modifying the treatment of costs as directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere illegality or error in a statutory act does not, without more, justify a finding of mala fides or want of good faith against a public authority; adverse personal strictures require a firmer factual basis and procedural fairness.

---