2023 (10) TMI 520 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants relief in Writ Petition, orders equal treatment for petitioner.

K. Govindasamy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Chennai, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order in G.O.(D).No.78 dated 28.05.2020. The respondents were directed to grant due increments, ... Charge against the Commercial Tax Officer - Lapse regarding allowing Input Tax Credit - non- production of original purchase bills - careless handling of the surprise inspection and suppression of the material facts - huge revenue loss to the exchequer and improperly functioning as Inspecting Officer - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is not the claim of the respondents that the team head G.Balasubramanian was discharged in view of certain illegality / inadvertence / mistake committed on the part of the Department. The Commercial Tax Officer has been discharged consciously by admitting the fact that there was a lapse on his part as well. He has been discharged, since the revenue impact has been eliminated subsequently. In such case, the same logic for granting the advantage ought to have been extended to the petitioner who is also similarly placed. No point of time the respondents have alleged any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. In fact, even in the order of punishment, it has been explicitly mentioned that there is no element of any ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner. So there cannot be any difficulty to grant the same benevolence shown to the then Commerial Tax Officer, who was the leader of the inspection team, to the members of the team as well. The order passed by the first respondent is set aside - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in this case include disciplinary proceedings against a petitioner working as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment, challenge against the order passed in G.O.(D)No.78 dated 28.05.2020, and the comparison of treatment between the petitioner and the head of the inspection team.Disciplinary Proceedings and Imposition of Punishment:The petitioner, a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, was part of an inspection team that conducted a surprise inspection. The team was charged with negligence for not bringing to the Department's notice certain defects from previous years. The petitioner was accused of causing revenue loss and improperly functioning as an Inspecting Officer. Disciplinary proceedings ensued, resulting in the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. The petitioner's appeal against this order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.Challenge Against G.O.(D)No.78 dated 28.05.2020:The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the order passed in G.O.(D)No.78 dated 28.05.2020, seeking due increments, seniority, and promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Officer on par with a junior colleague. The petitioner argued that the head of the inspection team was exonerated from charges, while the petitioner alone was punished. The petitioner highlighted a Government Order dropping charges against the head of the team due to the elimination of revenue impact.Comparison of Treatment:The petitioner's counsel cited a judgment emphasizing that if co-delinquents face identical charges but receive different punishments, the Court can intervene. The petitioner sought similar treatment as a co-delinquent whose charges were dropped. The Government Advocate contended that Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply in service matters, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Court noted that the head of the inspection team was discharged due to the elimination of revenue impact, and the same leniency should be extended to the petitioner.Conclusion:The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order in G.O.(D).No.78 dated 28.05.2020. The respondents were directed to grant due increments, seniority, and promotion to the petitioner on par with his junior colleague. The Court emphasized that there was no element of ulterior motive on the petitioner's part and that the same benevolence shown to the head of the inspection team should be extended to the team members.