Relief to Commercial Tax Officer: Madras HC quashes Punishment of Increment Stoppage on Failure to Achieve Target
While departments are entitled to fix collection targets, failure to achieve them by itself cannot be treated as misconduct unless there is evidence of dereliction of duty, said the court.
Commercial - tax - officer - Taxscan
Commercial - tax - officer - Taxscan
The Madras High Court has quashed an order of punishment imposed on a Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), holding that denial of increments for failure to meet revenue collection targets cannot be sustained in the absence of concrete proof of negligence.
The petitioner, P.Saravanan, a commercial tax officer, faced disciplinary proceedings, wherein the authority held him guilty of lapses while serving in a Roving Squad. It was alleged that he failed to check vehicles effectively and did not book sufficient cases, leading to low compounding fee collection.
The target fixed for him was ₹2.70 lakh, however, the actual collection fell short. On this basis, the Joint Commissioner ordered stoppage of increments for three years without cumulative effect.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
The petitioner, challenging the order, submitted before the High Court that he had diligently performed his duties and booked offenders whenever violations were detected. He explained that lower collections were not due to negligence or misconduct but to the actual circumstances during his tenure.
He further submitted that punishment merely for not achieving a target was arbitrary and disproportionate.
The State, defending the order, argued that the officer had failed to properly check vehicles and that the number of cases booked was far below expectations. However, when specifically questioned by the Court, the Government Advocate conceded that there was no evidence to show that the officer had deliberately let off any offending vehicles, failed to collect fines from offenders, or neglected duty in any particular instance.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
Justice K. Surendar observed that while departments are entitled to fix collection targets, failure to achieve them by itself cannot be treated as misconduct unless there is evidence of dereliction of duty.
The Court noted that the punishment order was based merely on assumptions drawn from lesser revenue collection, without any factual data indicating willful default by the officer. Such an unfounded allegation, it held, could not form the basis for imposing a major penalty like stoppage of increments.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned punishment order, allowing the writ petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
