2023 (1) TMI 985 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Disciplinary proceedings against the assessing officer (AO) - Validity of assessment orders passed and subsequently cancelled - complaint given by the petitioner's predecessor was paid subsequently by the two contractors - HELD THAT - It is clear that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and no action can be taken against him in view of the fact that the assessment orders passed against the contractors have been once again quashed by an independent assessment made by another Assessing Officer. This Court will not interfere with a charge memo but no useful purpose will be achieved if a direction is issued to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a time frame as the evidence placed on record before this Court as well as the statement made by the respondents before this Court through the learned Government Advocate makes it clear that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the alleged charge, in view of the fact that his assessment order passed earlier in his official capacity has once again been re-affirmed in the subsequent assessment order passed pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to charge memo based on grounds of no loss of revenue, payment of outstanding dues by contractors, closure of FIR, quashing of assessment order, and re-affirmation of assessment order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the charge memo issued to him, contending that there was no loss of revenue to the respondents and the contractors had paid their outstanding dues. Additionally, an FIR initiated by the petitioner's predecessor was closed after the contractors paid the mentioned amount. The assessment order passed by the petitioner was quashed by the Court and remanded for fresh consideration, but no new order was issued. The Court directed the respondents to provide evidence of tax liability by the contractors.

The Government Advocate confirmed that no tax was payable by the contractors and the Assessing Officer re-affirmed the earlier assessment order. The Court noted that no misconduct was committed by the petitioner, as the assessment orders against the contractors were quashed and re-affirmed independently. It was concluded that the petitioner could not be held guilty based on the evidence and statements made. The Court stated that even if a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, it would absolve the petitioner from any misconduct.

The Court decided to quash the charge memo, considering that no useful purpose would be served by directing completion of disciplinary proceedings. The evidence and statements indicated the petitioner's innocence, especially since the assessment order was re-affirmed post the Court's directions. The closure of the FIR against the contractors further supported the petitioner's position. Consequently, the charge memo was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.