Tax Bar Association Maunath Bhanjan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Held

The Court, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the first respondent within one week. The Court further ordered that upon receipt of such a representation, it would be examined, looked into, and remedied strictly in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter. This process would necessarily involve taking comments from all stakeholders. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations regarding the EOW inquiry or the specific grievances raised in the initial representation, focusing instead on facilitating a procedural resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Tax Bar Association Maunath Bhanjan and another, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction for an inquiry by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) into the conduct of private respondents (Administrative Officers in the Commercial Tax/State Tax/GST department, District Mau) who had allegedly been posted for over 15 years. Alternatively, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their application dated January 23, 2023. The petitioners highlighted that despite transfer orders issued on June 29, 2022, and December 9, 2022, the private respondents continued to hold their posts. The petitioners had submitted a detailed representation on January 23, 2023, which remained pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Economic Offences Wing to conduct an inquiry into the alleged irregularities concerning officials posted in the Commercial Tax/State Tax/GST department, District Mau, for over 15 years? The petitioner argued that the continued posting of certain officials despite transfer orders indicated a need for a thorough investigation by the EOW to unearth any malpractices. 2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to expeditiously decide the petitioners' pending representation dated January 23, 2023? The petitioner contended that their grievance, as detailed in the representation, required prompt attention and resolution by the competent authority. The respondent State, through the Standing Counsel, fairly conceded that any pending representation would be considered and decided expeditiously.