TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as 'KST Act') to M/s. Karthik Traders, Mangalore, without proper verification. It was also alleged that he did not investigate the information furnished by the applicant in Form No.1 as required under Rule 9(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KST Rules'). Due to his omission, the State was unable to recover tax from the assessee. This constituted misconduct under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 3. The respondent filed his reply; not satisfied with the same, Disciplinary Authority ordered holding of departmental enquiry against respondent and appointed Enquiry Officer. After following prescribed procedure, Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding respondent/employee guilty of misconduct. After giving opportunity on the enquiry report and considering the representation submitted by respondent, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 20.06.2007 inflicting punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under Rule 8 (iii) of CCA Rules. Departmental appeal preferred against order of punishment was also dismissed on 08.07.2009. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order." 7. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 10 (1) of KST Act stipulates a minimum turnover of not less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs in a year for a dealer to get himself registered under the Act. However, respondent herein issued registration certificate to assessee even before commencement of business. She further submitted that Section 10-A (2) of the KST Act, mandates appropriate enquiry by registering authority and only on satisfaction about correctness of particulars mentioned in the application and same being in order, proceed to issue registration. However, respondent in this case by merely relying upon the recommendation made by Inspector, issued registration. Admittedly, same is contrary to the stipulation of law. Failure to adhere to express stipulations of law amounts to misconduct. Commission of misconduct, was held established in departmental enquiry. However, Tribunal on erroneous interpretation set-aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same reveals that the allegation against the respondent was issuance of registration without proper verification and without investigation of information furnished by applicant in Form No.1 mandated under Rule 9(6) of KST Rules, and also failing to follow directions in the Circular issued by Commissioner. 13. In the statement of imputations, it is specifically mentioned that respondent failed to compare copies of family ration card, rent agreement etc., with their originals. That registration was issued even though applicant had not yet commenced business; that there was failure to notice that initial capital mentioned was Rs. 15,000/-. But, rent agreement produced mentioned payment of advance amount of Rs. 15,000/- leaving no capital available for business. It was further stated that registration was issued even before assessee obtained license from Agricultural Produce Market Committee and registration under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 14. In the reply submitted to articles of charge, respondent stated that application for registration submitted by assessee was replete with all mandated particulars. The applicant had enclosed copy of rent agreement and rati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication for registering, within thirty days of his total turnover reaching the amount specified under sub-section (1) of Section 10. ..... ..... (6) The Registering authority receiving the application shall, if he is satisfied after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary, that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete, register the dealer and grant him a certificate of registration in Form 2 after the same is duly countersigned by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and also a copy of such certificate for every place business within the State other than the principal place of business mentioned therein. Such certificate shall be held by the dealer subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules and to the restriction and conditions specified in that certificate. 19. From a careful perusal of above provisions, emphasis on the dealer to have commenced business prior to making application for registration cannot be lost sight of. From the enquiry report, it is seen that, applicant had mentioned date of commencement of business as 01.04.1999, which was reported by the Inspector to be incorrect. Respondent, who was the responsibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 27. However, tribunal allowed the application and set aside order of punishment only on the ground that allegation against respondent did not amount to misconduct. The reason assigned by tribunal is that Section 10 of the KST Act vested discretion in the Registering Officer about conduct of enquiry and as the officer in this case had got the application particulars verified through the Inspector, who recommended for registration, his decision to issue registration was taken in good faith, which cannot be termed as 'misconduct'. Therefore, tribunal held that charge is neither definite nor distinct as required under Rule 11(3)(i) of the CCA Rules. The tribunal also took note of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in i) Union Of India Vs. J Ahmed reported in 1979(2) SCC 286; ii) Ravi Yeshvanth Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. 2012(4) SCC 407; iii) Zunzarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1999(7) SCC 409 and iv) Ananth Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education & Ors. 2013 (6) SCC 515. It was also observed that disciplinary authority cannot presume that failure of respondent to verify documents before registration resulted in the dealer indulging in ....