Case Law Details
Sheshnath Adyaprasad Singh Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Disciplinary action should be taken against concerned officers for losing original documents: Bombay HC
Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Sheshnath Adyaprasad Singh v. Union of India (W.P. Nos. 9626 & 9627 of 2024), issued an interim order regarding the loss of original purchase invoices submitted by the petitioner in response to a Show Cause Notice (SCN). Despite the Commissioner of CGST Pune-1 admitting in an affidavit that the documents were received, a contradictory statement was later issued by the department, denying receipt. The petitioner had sought the return of these documents since October 2023 but received no response. The court observed that the department’s lack of clarity and conflicting statements raised serious concerns of misconduct. As a result, the High Court stayed the implementation and recovery under the impugned order until final disposal and directed the matter to be reported to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and other authorities for necessary action. The court noted that no explanation was provided regarding who searched for the missing documents or whether any disciplinary action was taken against the responsible officers. It emphasized that losing these documents had prejudiced both the petitioner’s case and the department’s own position. The Commissioner and other involved officers were directed to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated. The court also instructed the respondent officials to justify why they made contradictory statements regarding the documents’ receipt and loss. The interim relief granted on July 15, 2024, was extended until the final hearing of the petitions.
Facts:
Mr. Sheshnath Adyaprasad Singh (“the Petitioner”), had submitted the original purchase invoices and other documents to the GST department vide letter dated July 09, 2019 in response to SCN.
The Petitioner, vide letter dated October 03, 2023 had requested for returning the documents/files containing purchase invoices that were handed over. However, the Petitioner never received any reply to this letter dated October 03, 2023 and consequently, none of the documents were made available due to which Petitioner was not able to reply to the SCN.
The Respondents issued few letters to the Petitioner in February 2024 and March 2024 to state that they have not received any documents referred to in petitioner’s letter dated July 9, 2019.
The Respondents had not promptly replied to Petitioner’s letter dated October 3, 2023 and waited till February or March 2024 to reply.
Two orders dated July 15, 2024 (“the Impugned Orders”) were passed to grant an interim stay.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Orders, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether Disciplinary action should be taken against the concerned officers for losing original documents?
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9626 & 9627 of 2024 held as under:
- Observed that, multiple efforts have been made to find the documents mentioned in the letter dated July 9, 2019 but the same are not traceable in the office record. The Department is totally silent as to whether they personally searched the documents, did not say who searched for the documents and did not further state that whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the concerned officer for losing the documents. Those documents were not relied upon but the fact is that those documents are required by Petitioner to respond to the action being taken against Petitioner. Therefore, by losing the original documents which have been admittedly taken from Petitioner, respondents have prejudiced the rights of the Petitioner.
- Held that, the Department’s statements, first admitting receipt of documents in an affidavit, then stating to the contrary that documents were received but lost in an official letter raised serious concerns of misconduct. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court stayed the operation and recovery under the Order-in-Original until final disposal.
- Directed that, this order be also forwarded to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and to the Chief Commissioner for necessary action.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
There is an affidavit of one Ravindra J. Dange, Commissioner, CGST Pune-1 affirmed on 5th August 2024.
2. In Writ Petition No.9626 of 2024, on 15th July 2024, the following order was passed :
“1 Though various grounds have been raised in petition, according to petitioner, the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to even reply to the show cause notice.
2. Ms. Pawar submitted that by a letter dated 3rd October 2023 delivered on 5th October 2023, petitioner had requested for returning the documents/files containing purchase invoices that were handed over to respondents vide letter dated 9th July 2019. Ms. Pawar states that petitioner never received any reply to this letter dated 3rd October 2023 and consequently, none of the documents were made available due to which petitioner was not able to reply to the show cause notice.
3 Mr. Adik relies on undated letters from respondents to petitioner issued some time in February 2024 and March 2024 to state that respondents have not received any document referred to in petitioner’s letter dated 9th July 2019. Ms. Pawar states that the signature on the letter dated 9th July 2019 is of one Mr. Yadav, the Inspector.
4 When we informed Mr. Adik why respondents have not promptly replied to petitioner’s letter dated 3rd October 2023 and waited till February or March 2024 to reply, Mr. Adik requests the matter be stood over to enable him to personally enquire into the matter and try to find a solution.
5 Stand over to 5th August 2024.
6 Until 31st August 2024, there shall be ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (d) which reads as under :
“(d) Pending admission and final hearing of this Petition this Hon’ble court be please to by way of ad interim and/or interim relief stay the operation, implementation and recovery under the impugned Order-In-Original No. PUN- CGST-001/JC-GS-03/24-25 dtd. 25.04.2024.”
3. In Writ Petition No.9627 of 2024, on 15th July 2024, the following order was passed :
“1 Ms. Pawar relies upon an affidavit of one Ms.Tejal Mhatre affirmed on 25th June 2024 to submit that respondents have been served on or about 22nd June 2024.
2 Ms. Yadav states she will take instructions in this regard.
3 Ms. Pawar states she will give Ms. Yadav a copy of the petition.
4 Stand over to 5th August 2024. Until 31st August 2024, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) which reads as under:
“(d) Pending admission and final hearing of this Petition this Hon’ble court be please to by way of ad interim and/or interim relief stay the operation, implementation and recovery under the impugned Order-In-No. PUN-CGST-001 /JC-GS-04 /24-25 dtd. 25.04.2024. ”
4 In the affidavit of this Ravindra J. Dange, he admits that the said Yadav had received the documents mentioned in petitioner’s letter dated 9th July 2019. The said Yadav, who is present in Court also confirms having received. This statement on oath by Dange is contrary to letter dated 20th March 2024 of one Sandip Vichare who has stated that respondents do not have any such document.
5 Mr. Adik, on instructions reiterates it was received but in the affidavit, it is stated by the said Dange that multiple efforts have been made to find the documents mentioned in the letter dated 9th July 2019 but the same are not traceable in the office record. The said Dange is totally silent as to whether he personally searched the documents. He also does not say who searched for the documents. He does not further state that whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the concerned officer for losing the documents. Mr. Adik says those documents are not relied upon by respondents but the fact is that those documents are required by petitioner to respond to the action being taken against petitioner. Therefore, by losing the original documents which have been admittedly taken from petitioner, respondents have prejudiced the rights of petitioner. This is a very serious matter which requires serious action.
6 The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Pune-1, Dange shall explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and the concerned officers for losing original documents. It should be noted that by losing these original documents, respondents have also prejudiced their own case against petitioner. This is a serious issue. Therefore, this order be also forwarded to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and to the Chief Commissioner to whom the said Dange may report for information and necessary action. Petitioner’s advocate is permitted to forward.
7 We would have expected the said Mr. Yadav to file an affidavit explaining to whom these documents were handed over which affidavit has also not been filed.
8 Respondents are also to show cause why no action be taken against them for making false statement that they do not have records and in affidavit of Dange stating to the contrary that documents were received but lost.
9 The interim orders granted on 15th July 2024 shall continue until the hearing and final disposal of the petitions.
10 Stand over to 19th August 2024.
****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
