Expedite Inquiry Decision: Allahabad HC Tells State in Challenge to Suspension of Tax Officer [Read Order]

TheAllahabad High Court directed the disciplinary authority to expeditiously conclude the proceedings against the State Tax Officer within one month. The Court observed that since the petitioner had already filed a detailed reply to the inquiry report and show cause notice, the authority was legally bound to examine every contention raised and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

The petitioner, Ritesh Barnawal serving as Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, was transferred from Meerut to Raebareli. On 1 July 2025, he was suspended over allegations concerning a bogus GST registration issued to Rajdhani Enterprises, which was accused of claiming ineligible ITC. A chargesheet dated, containing three charges, was served on 16 July 2025.

Also Read: Liability of Legal Heir Limited to Assets Inherited fromPartners of Defaulter Firm: Punjab & Haryana HC sets aside Income TaxAttachment

Documents required for defence were provided only on 12 August 2025, and the Inquiry Officer granted just one day to respond before submitting the report on 23 August 2025 holding the charges proved. Following a show cause notice dated 10 September 2025, the petitioner submitted his reply on 29 September 2025, asserting multiple procedural and factual objections.

The petitioner argued that two of the charges related to a period before he joined the Raebareli post and that the third charge granting additional time to the GST registrant was consistent with fairness in administrative decision-making. He further contended that the inquiry was conducted in undue haste, with inadequate opportunity to respond, and claimed that the Inquiry Officer lacked competence as he belonged to another department with only additional charge.

Also Read: Decade-Late Claim: Delhi HC Declines to Order Form 26A Issuanceto Kohinoor Educational Services

The bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar held that it was not necessary to interfere with the inquiry process at this juncture, as the disciplinary authority was obligated to decide the petitioner’s reply fairly and logically. The Court directed that a final decision be taken within one month of receiving the certified copy of the judgment. Moreover, declined to examine the issue of suspension, observing that it fell within the domain of the competent authority.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates