Suspension of GST officer over alleged fraudulent ITC facilitation and registration cancellation quashed; disciplinary action to finish in 3 months

The dominant issue was whether a suspension order against a public officer, premised on alleged facilitation of fraudulent ITC claims running into crores and resulting in cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration, was justified to continue. The HC noted that the officer had already submitted an inspection report, a show-cause notice had been issued thereafter, and the allegedly fraudulent ITC claim was made subsequently, indicating no sufficient prima facie basis to continue suspension. The suspension order was set aside; however, the authorities were permitted to proceed with disciplinary action and directed to conclude it within three months.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the impugned suspension order was justified to be continued, having regard to the material on record concerning the officer's role in the events leading to a fraudulent input tax credit claim by an assessee.

(ii) Whether setting aside the suspension should nonetheless permit the authorities to proceed with and conclude disciplinary proceedings within a fixed timeframe.

(iii) Whether, upon setting aside the suspension, the officer was entitled to subsistence allowance for the period during which the suspension remained operative, subject to statutory conditions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Sustainability/continuance of the suspension order

Legal framework: The Court considered the administrative basis of suspension in the context of alleged misconduct linked to a fraudulent claim of input tax credit by an assessee. The judgment records submissions referring to departmental circulars concerning timelines for post-deemed approval physical inspection, but the Court's determination rested on the sequence of actions and the officer's report and its consequences, rather than on a definitive interpretation of those circulars.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the admitted chronology: an application for registration was followed by deemed approval; a physical inspection was subsequently conducted by the officer and an adverse report was submitted; a show cause notice was issued by the competent authority; the registration was not suspended at that stage; thereafter the assessee fraudulently claimed input tax credit; and later the registration was cancelled. On these facts, the Court formed a prima facie view that since an adverse inspection report had already been submitted and action thereafter lay with the proper officer who issued the show cause notice but did not suspend the registration, the suspension of the officer "need not be continued".

Conclusion: The Court set aside the suspension order, holding that on the material sequence of events, continuation of suspension was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Effect of quashing suspension on disciplinary proceedings; time-bound conclusion

Interpretation and reasoning: While quashing the suspension, the Court expressly preserved the employer's power to conduct disciplinary proceedings arising out of the same episode. It balanced reinstatement from suspension with administrative accountability by directing expeditious completion and recording the officer's stated willingness (through counsel) to participate. The Court also provided for the contingency of non-cooperation by the officer, directing that unnecessary adjournments should not derail timely completion.

Conclusion: Quashing of suspension was ordered without precluding disciplinary proceedings, which were directed to be concluded within three months; in case of non-participation or unnecessary adjournments by the officer, the authority was to conclude proceedings within three months thereafter.

Issue (iii): Subsistence allowance for the period of suspension until it was set aside

Interpretation and reasoning: Upon setting aside the suspension, the Court directed payment of subsistence allowance for the operative suspension period up to the date it was annulled, expressly conditioning payment on fulfillment of statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The officer was held entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till the date it was set aside, subject to statutory provisions.

---