2023 (11) TMI 823 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Disciplinary proceedings against formerly Appellate Deputy Commissioner - Entitlement to challenge the charge memo - petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a quasi judicial appellate authority exercising powers conferred under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Rules and hence, the order passed by the petitioner cannot be subjected to Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1973 - HELD THAT - If the order passed by the quasi judicial authority is taken as a foundation for bringing the quasi judicial authority under disciplinary proceedings, no quasi judicial authority can discharge his functions without fear. While exercising the quasi judicial power, the authority concerned should have the independency to decide the issue within his power. Even wrong interpretation of law or wrong appreciation of facts cannot be the reason to issue charge memo against the authority exercising quasi judicial powers and the impugned proceedings can be challenged only by way of preferring an appeal. The charge memo issued by the first respondent is completely without jurisdiction and authority. Further the respondents have also failed to properly appreciate the impact of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and have chosen to come to arrive at a short conclusion that 25% of the admitted tax has not been paid by the appellant. Since the short sighted charge memo issued by the respondents directly infringes upon the right of the petitioner and his authority as a quasi judicial officer. Hence, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside. The proceedings passed by the first respondent is quashed and the respondents are directed to give all consequential and attendant benefits, if any, to the petitioner - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The legality of a charge memo issued against a quasi judicial authority and the authority's right to challenge the same through a Writ Petition.

Summary:
The petitioner, a former Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Chennai, challenged a charge memo alleging violation of TNVAT Act by admitting appeals without mandatory payment of disputed tax. The petitioner claimed the charge memo was illegal and filed a Writ Petition seeking its quashing.

The petitioner argued that as a quasi-judicial authority under the TNVAT Act, the charge memo was unauthorized and mala fide. The respondents contended that the petitioner should face disciplinary proceedings instead of challenging the charge memo.

The respondents highlighted the petitioner's failure to mandate payment of 25% disputed tax in admitted appeals, as required by Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. They emphasized that any challenge to the petitioner's orders should be through appellate remedies, not disciplinary proceedings.

The charge memo did not allege malafide intention on the petitioner's part. The Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal clarified that TDS deducted by the Corporation of Chennai could be considered for the 25% disputed tax payment.

The High Court held that the charge memo lacked jurisdiction and authority, as quasi-judicial authorities should have independence in decision-making. The proceedings were quashed, and the respondents were directed to provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.