The Supreme Court expunged personal remarks made against Commercial Tax Officers in an order passed by Karnataka High Court.
An order of reassessment passed by the petitioner, Sujata K.C. who was the Commercial Tax Assessing officer on 28 October 2016 in her capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was challenged by the assessee.
By the order, a demand was raised under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003. By an order dated 24 September 2018, the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of reassessment, holding that the order was not consistent with the provisions of a notification dated 31 March 2010.
The Single Judge, while setting aside the reassessment imposed costs of Rs 50,000 and directed that the costs be recovered from the petitioner from her personal resources. The Single Judge observed that the petitioner had passed an order which “is, therefore, nothing less than suffering from malice-in-facts as well as malice-in-law”.
The petitioner challenged the order of the Single Judge insofar as it contained observations against her and the order of costs in an appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench has upheld the order of the Single Judge.
“The learned Single Judge had no reasonable justification to hold that the petitioner had passed a whimsical order and that it suffered from malice in fact and in law,” the Supreme Court observed.
The division bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra held that direct that the observations of the Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the order dated 24 September 2018 as against the petitioner shall stand expunged. Similarly, the direction in paragraph 8 of the order for recovery of costs from the personal resources of the petitioner shall stand set aside.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
