9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who failed to verify such effects and corresponding sales / transit sales was only to aid and help the particular agency which is not warranted from the petitioner, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer.' Our Country is run only by the tax paid by the assesses made by the individual or from the companies. The duty is cast upon the tax officers, who execute their duties diligently, however, the petitioner's attitude, while he was serving as a Commercial Tax Officer, is not acceptable. Likewise, charge Nos.4 and 5 are also serious as charge No.3 when the petitioner while finalizing the assessment of the particular agency failed to mention in the assessment order how the purchase worth of ₹ 1,50,06,565/- made by issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuation viz., 31.03.2004, containing five charges and he was suspended on the ground that the charges are pending against him. 3. The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Tuticorin was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner appeared before him for enquiry and he placed his submissions as to the charges levelled against him. On 12.07.2004, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting detailed enquiry, had given the findings that charge Nos.1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner were not proved and charge Nos.3, 4 and 5 levelled against the petitioner were proved. 4. In the mean time, since the enquiry has been completed, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 02.02.2005 had passed an order of revocation of suspension a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Petition in W.P(MD)No.4808 of 2011 challenging the charge memo dated 30.03.2004 and this Court, by order dated 26.04.2011 directed the respondents to pass final orders within a period of two months. The first respondent passed the impugned order herein dated 23.01.2012 imposing recovery of a sum of ₹ 1,58,941/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner and also imposed a punishment of cut in pension at the rate of ₹ 1,000/- per month for a period of five years. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that though there were five charges framed against the petitioner, charge Nos.1 and 2 were held in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders within a period of two months. Though the Court has given a specific direction, the impugned order came to be passed only on 23.01.2012 belatedly by the first respondent. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader, who had filed the additional counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, would contend that the Enquiry Officer has clearly stated that the dealers Tvl. Uco Agency had done business in paper, when the petitioner was serving as an officer and the dealers had filed the annual return in Form- I on 25.03.2004 declaring a total turnover of ₹ 2,17,28,195/- and nil respectively for the year 2000-01 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and claimed exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which was disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the effect that there has been no purchase or sales during the year 2000-01, without verifying, whether corresponding taxable sales / transit sales have been effected by Tvl. Uco Agency and also not kept the Form VIII extract containing the details of Form 'C' issued by the dealer in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Assessment file, whereas, during the enquiry it was found that Tvl. Uco Agency had actually issued Form 'C' to the two dealers at Sivakasi to the tune of ₹ 1,50,06,565/-. Further, based on the evidence and enquiries it is revealed that the dealer had done business in paper and resin and accordingly the accounts of the dealer that were summoned for scrutinizing and the dealer had filed annual return in Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uties diligently, however, the petitioner's attitude, while he was serving as a Commercial Tax Officer, is not acceptable. Likewise, charge Nos.4 and 5 are also serious as charge No.3 when the petitioner while finalizing the assessment of the particular agency failed to mention in the assessment order how the purchase worth of ₹ 1,50,06,565/- made by issuing Form 'C' have been sold by the particular agency. As the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the enquiry officer has held the charges proved as against the petitioner, based on the detailed enquiry, by which the turnover could have escaped from the assessment and the petitioner as an officer has failed in his duty and not verified the same and hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
