Malikhan Singh Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, challenged a suspension order dated 23.08.2025 issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The High Court heard the matter after the State submitted instructions and agreed to proceed on the basis of the available record.
According to the petitioner, he was posted as a State Tax Officer in Sector-2, Etawah on 19.01.2023. A firm, M/s B.K. Traders, applied for GST registration on 13.10.2024. Under the circular dated 14.11.2018, GST papers must be processed within three days, after which deemed registration is granted. The petitioner conducted a physical verification and submitted his report on 03.12.2024, stating that the firm was bogus. The report was sent to the Assistant Commissioner. Despite this, a show cause notice was issued only on 05.12.2024, and it did not suspend the registration. On 13.01.2025, the firm claimed ITC, allegedly defrauding the State exchequer by Rs. 3,01,15,690/-. The petitioner argued that responsibility for preventing such ITC claim lay with the competent authority, which failed to act on his adverse report.
The petitioner also pointed to the circular’s provision that, after deemed approval, the State Tax Officer must upload the inquiry report within fifteen days upon instruction from the Assistant Commissioner. He asserted that he submitted the report and fulfilled his responsibility, and any delay could not be considered a disciplinary lapse warranting suspension. He argued that the Assistant Commissioner, despite receiving the adverse report on 03.12.2024, did not suspend the registration before issuing the show cause notice. Since the fraudulent ITC claim occurred later, the petitioner argued that no misconduct could be attributed to him.
