Disposed

Abhay Kumar Patel v. the Prin. Secy., Deptt. of State Tax, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2025WRIA/13595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a State Tax officer, challenged his suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry over failure to cancel a firm's GST registration. Counsel sought time to reply to the charge-sheet and a timeline for inquiry. Court allowed 15 days to file reply and directed expeditious conclusion of inquiry within three months, disposing of the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abhay Kumar Patel vs the Prin. Secy., Deptt. of State… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13595 of 2025

¶3

Abhay Kumar Patel

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus
The Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of State Tax, Lko. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kushagra Dikshit, Ajeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.	Abhishek Singh,
Court No.- 7

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶7

Order On Application For Amendment

¶8

Application for amendment of prayer no.1 filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Since only a clerical mistake is sought to be corrected, the application is allowed .

¶10

Consequential amendment shall be incorporated during the course of day.

¶11

Order In Memo of Writ Petition

¶12

Heard Mr. J. N. Mathur, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kushagra Dikshit, Mr. Abhishek Singh and Mr. Ajeet Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶13

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.09.2025 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension from duty in contemplation of departmental inquiry.

¶14

It has been submitted that primary allegation levelled against petitioner is that he issued a registration certificate under the

¶15

WRIA No. 13595 of 2025

¶16

¶17

GSTIN on 02.05.2023 to a firm namely M/s Nisha Enterprises in District Hapur but upon physical verification, a report dated 27.07.2023 was submitted by the State Tax Officer to the effect that the inspection was found adverse and recommendation for cancellation of registration. Allegation levelled against petitioner is that despite such a recommendation being made on 27.07.2023, he failed to take necessary action with regard to cancellation of registration of the firm concerned.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was subsequently transferred out of the District on 22.08.2023 and in the meantime, he had taken up various cases for cancellation of registration in accordance with priority with regard to suspicious transaction being made and in the course of such an activity, passed 18 orders pertaining to cancellation of registration of various firms. It is submitted that since there was no suspicious activity reported with regard to firm concerned, the aspect of registration of the firm concerned was not a priority and prior to passing of any appropriate orders, he stood transferred on 22.08.2023. It is also submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that there is no subjective application of mind by the authority concerned with regard to the allegations levelled against petitioner. It is also submitted that the preliminary inquiry report dated 28.08.2025 clearly indicates the fact that despite the alleged omission on the part of petitioner, no ITC was passed on during the tenure of petitioner and was in fact passed on by the successor of petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Kumar. It is therefore submitted that no loss to the exchequer occurred on account of any omission on the part of petitioner.

¶19

It is also submitted that the preliminary inquiry report would make it evident that different roles were assigned to different officers with regard to the alleged omission and the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the role of petitioner in the alleged misconduct.

¶20

Learned counsel has further submitted that even otherwise if

¶21

WRIA No. 13595 of 2025

¶22

¶23

proved, though not admitted, the allegations so levelled would only indicate negligence and not misconduct due to which no major penalty would be imposeable and therefore there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have suspended petitioner in terms of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules 1999.

¶24

Mr. V. K. Bajpai, learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that omission indicated in the impugned order would make it evident that it was with an intent of causing loss to exchequer and would therefore construe to be major misconduct. It is further submitted that the aspects as raised by learned Senior counsel can very well be adverted to in the inquiry proceedings particularly since admittedly charge-sheet has already been issued to petitioner to which reply has not yet been submitted.

¶25

After arguing at some length and in response thereto, learned Senior counsel on the basis of instructions submits that time may be granted for filing of reply to the charge-sheet and a time frame for conclusion of inquiry proceedings may be indicated.

¶26

Upon such submission being made by learned counsel for petitioner, 15 days' time from today is granted to petitioner to file a response to the charge-sheet dated 30.09.2025. Opposite parties shall endavour to conclude the inquiry proceedings expeditiously within a period of three months from the last date on which petitioner is required to submit his reply. The said time frame is subject to co-operation of petitioner in inquiry proceedings.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶29

November 24, 2025 Subodh/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhay Kumar Patel v. the Prin. Secy., Deptt. of State Tax, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abhay Kumar Patel v. the Prin. Secy., Deptt. of State Tax, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivansh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and Others

Om Prakash Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dr. Pragya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 Others

Ananda Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and 2 Others

Anurag Mehrotra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Nazini Bano @ Nazni Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others