Karthikeyan.M vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, M. Karthikeyan, filed a writ petition challenging a charge memo dated 25.10.2021 issued by the respondent, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The petitioner's grievance was that the charge memo directed him to pay interest along with GST without specifying any offense committed. The petitioner contended that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, TASMAC shops were closed, and goods sold during that period could not be billed, leading to a shortage amount of Rs. 8,35,320/-. The petitioner had already repaid the shortage amount and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards interest. The respondent's counsel noted that the petitioner was also involved in a criminal case for selling liquor bottles outside TASMAC shops.

Held

The Court held that the impugned charge memo dated 25.10.2021 was unsustainable. The Court observed that the charge memo directed the petitioner to pay an amount without referring to the nature of the offense committed. It was characterized as a recovery order passed without clarity regarding the offense. Consequently, the charge memo was set aside. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh charge memo if any delinquency was pointed out against the petitioner and if they were so advised. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the charge memo dated 25.10.2021, which directs the petitioner to pay interest along with GST without specifying the offense committed, is legally sustainable? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the charge memo was issued without conducting any enquiry and without fixing the specific offense committed by him. He contended that the inability to bill goods was a consequence of the COVID-19 lockdown, a situation prevalent across Tamil Nadu, and that the charge memo was essentially a recovery order passed without due process. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel pointed out that the petitioner was involved in a separate criminal case for selling liquor bottles outside TASMAC shops, registered under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. However, the respondent did not specifically address the legality of the charge memo itself or the lack of a specified offense in their arguments.