Kuldeep Sing vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Kuldeep Sing, filed a writ petition challenging an order of suspension dated January 7, 2022. The case originated from the interception of vehicles, including Truck No. UP 23 AT 1745, on July 27, 2021, for lacking a tax invoice and e-way pass. The petitioner initially imposed tax and penalty totaling Rs. 73,236/- on August 16, 2021. Subsequently, upon discovering discrepancies between the driver's documents and GST records, the petitioner issued a further notice on September 4, 2021, and imposed penalties equal to the goods' valuations on September 6, 2021. The petitioner argued he had the authority to re-assess due to apparent errors. The State contended that action should have been taken under Section 107, not Section 161 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, addressed the petitioner's prayer for revocation of suspension. The Court noted that the petitioner had been under suspension since January 2022. Considering the submissions, the Court directed that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within four weeks from the date of the order (April 28, 2022), and there are no allegations of non-cooperation by the petitioner, the suspension order dated January 7, 2022, would become inoperative or remain in abeyance until the inquiry is concluded. The Court did not definitively rule on the legality of the action taken under Section 161 versus Section 107, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of the suspension pending inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an officer, was justified in taking action under Section 161 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when discrepancies were found between documents produced by drivers and GST records, or if he should have informed superiors to file appeals under Section 107 of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he had the authority to re-assess the matter as there was an apparent error on the face of the record. He argued that there was no misconduct and that the maximum penalty imposed was legal. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and others vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, to argue that judicial review is warranted if charges are baseless and framed solely to keep an employee out of a job. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner ought to have informed his superiors who would then have filed appeals under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, instead of taking action under Section 161. The State also submitted that a charge sheet was served in March 2022, a reply was submitted, and the inquiry would conclude within three months.