Non-consideration of Representation Submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax regarding Promotion as Joint Commissioner amounts to dereliction of duty: Madras HC [Read Order]

K.Chandrasekaran,Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes – State Taxes),the petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.142 (Commercial Taxes and Registration (E2) Department with a further direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) on par with similarly placed persons.

The petitioner was initially appointed as 'Junior Assistant' in the Commercial Tax Department on 17.02.1999 and then, he was promoted as 'Senior Inspector of Cooperative Department' in March, 2001 and as 'Sub Registrar' in Registration Department in November, 2001.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The petitioner, after having passed Group-I examination in the year 2009, joined as Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and his seniority rank is No.1 and he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and is now working as the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes – Sate Taxes) in Thoothukudi under Tirunelveli Division.

While this being so, the first respondent also published the revised seniority list of Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), based on the marks scored in the Group-I examination. However, the first respondent, without promoting the petitioner as Joint Commissioner, promoted his juniors vide order dated 27.12.2023, which is impugned in this writ petition.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's rank is No.1 in the revised seniority list and he has to be promoted as 'Joint Commissioner' as first person. However, he has not been promoted and there is no disciplinary proceedings and criminal case pending against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is eligible to be promoted as 'Joint Commissioner'.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

He further submitted that though larger relief has been sought for by the petitioner, now, he confines the prayer that it would suffice if the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.12.2023 is disposed of in accordance with law.

A single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh found that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a StatutoryAuthority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely.

It was submitted that non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty.

Considering the facts and circumstances , the Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.12.2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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