2024 (8) TMI 951 - HC - GST

Officials Face Disciplinary Action for Serious Procedural Violations in Administrative Document Handling and Communication Breakdown

Sheshnath Adyaprasad Singh, Anupkumar Sheshnath Singh, Proprietor of M/s. S.S. Steel Versus Union of India

HC found significant procedural irregularities in document handling and communication. The court identified multiple issues including failure to provide ... Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to even reply to the SCN - Non-receipt of documents by the petitioner hindering the reply to the notice - HELD THAT:- By losing the original documents which have been admittedly taken from petitioner, respondents have prejudiced the rights of petitioner. This is a very serious matter which requires serious action. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Pune-1, Dange shall explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and the concerned officers for losing original documents. It should be noted that by losing these original documents, respondents have also prejudiced their own case against petitioner. This is a serious issue. Therefore, this order be also forwarded to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and to the Chief Commissioner to whom the said Dange may report for information and necessary action. Petitioner’s advocate is permitted to forward. Respondents are also to show cause why no action be taken against them for making false statement that they do not have records and in affidavit of Dange stating to the contrary that documents were received but lost. Stand over to 19th August 2024. Issues:1. Failure to provide an opportunity to reply to a show cause notice.2. Non-receipt of documents by the petitioner hindering the reply to the notice.3. Discrepancy regarding the receipt and availability of documents.4. Allegation of losing original documents by the respondents.5. Request for disciplinary action against the Commissioner and concerned officers.6. Lack of explanation regarding the handling of documents.7. False statements made by respondents.8. Continuation of interim orders until final disposal of petitions.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of the petitioner not being given an opportunity to respond to a show cause notice. The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was passed without allowing them to reply. The court noted the lack of response to the petitioner's request for the return of documents, which prevented them from replying effectively.2. Another issue involved the non-receipt of documents by the petitioner, as stated by their counsel. The respondent, however, presented undated letters suggesting they did not receive the documents mentioned in the petitioner's letter. The court directed further inquiry into this matter to ascertain the truth.3. The judgment highlighted a discrepancy regarding the receipt and availability of documents. While an affidavit admitted the receipt of documents, another statement claimed the documents were lost. This contradiction raised concerns about the handling of crucial evidence in the case.4. Allegations were made against the respondents for losing original documents that were essential for the petitioner's defense. The court emphasized the seriousness of this matter and the prejudice caused to the petitioner's rights due to the loss of documents.5. The court ordered the Commissioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and other officers for the loss of documents. Additionally, the court directed the matter to be forwarded to relevant authorities for necessary action, emphasizing the gravity of the situation.6. Lack of explanation regarding the handling of documents was noted by the court, especially the absence of an affidavit explaining the transfer of documents. This raised concerns about the transparency and accountability in the handling of crucial evidence.7. False statements made by the respondents regarding the availability of records were highlighted, indicating a lack of integrity in the proceedings. The court directed the respondents to show cause why no action should be taken against them for providing conflicting information.8. The judgment concluded by stating that interim orders granted earlier would continue until the final disposal of the petitions, ensuring that the rights and interests of the parties involved are protected during the legal proceedings.