Departmental Action Against Assistant Commissioner

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered departmental action against assistant commissioner for non-compliance of appellate orders.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that if subordinate officers do not comply with the appellate orders, it would be something sort of administrative chaos. Such officers are required to be dealt with by the Department in a strict manner, so that they may not create a precedent for others to start insubordination. It also reflects in general public faith in filing appeals, which would be waived if the appellate orders are not complied with Litigation is also forced unnecessarily before this Court. Such insubordination requires more strictness.

Background

A refund application was filed by the petitioner claiming refund of Rs.2,02,09,111. The refund application was rejected by the then concerned Assistant Commissioner, on the ground of limitation stating that the refund application has been filed after a period of two years, as provided under the Circular dated 20.07.2021.

Departmental Action Against Assistant Commissioner

The appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which came to be allowed by the Joint Commissioner. It was held that the refund claim should not have been rejected on the grounds of being time barred.

Therefore, the Joint Commissioner remanded back the matter to the proper officer to examine the refund application of the appellant afresh and on merits alone. The Joint Commissioner directed that the proper officer shall pass a detailed speaking order after going through the submissions of the appellant and he shall adhere to the principles of Natural Justice.

The Assistant Commissioner, Sewa Ram, again heard the application and passed an order, in which he mentioned a letter sent to the Joint Commissioner seeking clarification or order in appeal. The Joint Commissioner answered his letter, and rejected it, treating it as beyond the scope of Section 161 of the CGST Act. The concerned Assistant Commissioner has again rejected the refund application being time barred.

Conclusion

The court held that the Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer, had refused to examine the case on merits and again dismissed the application as time barred. Such an approach adopted by the subordinate officer is the result of the virtual failure of the system of hierarchy in the CGST.

The court directed the Commissioner to take appropriate departmental action against the concerned Assistant Commissioner, Sewa Ram, for his insubordination, by initiating proceedings for major penalty.

The court disposed of this writ petition by setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and at the same time, directed the Commissioner to appoint another officer to deal with the application relating to refund of the petitioner, who would decide it purely on merits within a stipulated period of two months.