Calcutta HC lambasts adjudicating authority for not following judicial discipline

Keysight Technologies India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta took a stern stance against an adjudicating authority for failing to adhere to the directions of a senior officer. The court strongly disapproved of the adjudicating officer’s actions, citing a lack of judicial discipline and emphasizing the potential consequences of such behavior in government offices.

The case revolved around a petitioner, an exporter, who had filed a claim for the refund of input tax credit. After the claim was initially rejected, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority, upon reviewing the case, allowed the appeal on its merits and remanded the matter back to the original authority with a specific directive to issue a detailed and reasoned order. However, the original authority rejected the claim once again, arguing that the appellate authority did not possess the power of ‘remand’ under Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The original authority contended that the appellate authority should have passed the order themselves, leading to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment strongly criticized the adjudicating authority’s actions. It noted that the Adjudicating Authority had passed the impugned order on remand from a higher authority in direct violation of the higher Appellate Authority’s specific directive. Such conduct, the court emphasized, was unacceptable, as the Adjudicating Authority, being subordinate to the Appellate Authority, was legally bound to comply with the higher authority’s orders.

The court went further to highlight the severe implications of such behavior. It stressed that if adjudicating authorities were allowed to openly defy and reject the orders of their senior officers, it could lead to administrative anarchy within government offices. This kind of conduct was also deemed contrary to the norms governing quasi-judicial functions.

Additionally, the court noted that if the Adjudicating Authority believed that the Appellate Authority’s order was incorrect, they had the option to pursue further appeal rather than simply refusing to comply. The judgment held that such behavior demonstrated a lack of respect for the hierarchical structure of authority.

To address this issue, the court directed the Commissioner of CGST to take note of the Adjudicating Officer’s conduct and issue proper instructions to prevent such behavior in the future.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of following judicial discipline and respecting hierarchical authority within government offices. It underscores the need for government officials, especially those in quasi-judicial roles, to adhere to the orders and directives of senior officers. Failure to do so not only disrupts the functioning of government offices but can also lead to administrative chaos. The judgment sets a precedent for ensuring that government authorities at all levels act in accordance with established norms and legal obligations, thereby upholding the principles of justice and governance.

The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund in question, passed on the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority on 26^th March, 2021 with specific direction upon the Adjudicating Authority to consider the petitioner’s application and pass a speaking order. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order on remand by the higher authority by clearly defying and in violation of the order of the higher Appellate Authority which was binding upon the Adjudicating Authority being a subordinate to the Appellate Authority, by recording that the order of the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law and he could not comply the order of the Appellate Authority and rejected the petitioner’s claim of refund. Such conduct of the Adjudicating Authority is highly deprecable and if such stand is taken by an adjudicating authority on his senior authority’s order by contending that his officer’s order is not correct and he will not obey and comply such order, there will be administrative anarchy in the Government offices and such conduct is also beyond the norms of the quashi-judicial authority’s’ function. If Adjudicating Authority was of the view that order of the Appellate Authority was not in accordance with law he could have gone to further appeal. The Commissioner of CGST shall take note of such conduct of the aforesaid Adjudicating Officer and issue proper instruction for avoidance of such conduct in future.

Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents are not in a position to defend such conduct of the respondents/Adjudicating Authority.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and submission of the parties and in view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 21^st February, 2022, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With this observation and direction this writ petition being WPA 19783 of 2023 is disposed of.

A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Commissioner of CGST by the petitioner.