Allowed¶46

Suresh Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Recovery – VAT deposit of Rs.1,41,000/-

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2026WPS/4415/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery from retired government servant held illegal; VAT tax deposit Rs.1,41,000; audit objection by Accountant General; Block Education Officer Ambikapur; communication dated 07.06.2021 quashed/refund ordered; no departmental enquiry, only post-retirement show-cause notice under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 Rule 3(1)-(3); retiral dues withheld; refund with 6% interest from 07.02.2022; WPS No. 4415 of 2021; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed and disposed of: recovery of Rs.1,41,000/- held illegal; respondents/State directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit (07.02.2022). ¶46

Suresh Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery/deposit of Rs.1,41,000/- towards VAT from the petitioner — an amount he admittedly never received or retained, and which his office as Block Education Officer was required to deposit with the Commercial Tax Department — could lawfully be fastened on him personally. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The recovery effected from the petitioner is illegal and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, since it was an official transaction required to be carried out by the office of the Block Education Officer, and the amount was ultimately deposited by the petitioner from his own pocket.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The amount of Rs.1,41,000/- was never retained by the petitioner; it was an official transaction required to be deposited by the office of the Block Education Officer with the Commercial Tax Department, and the petitioner deposited it from his own pocket.

¶41

Key takeaways

As the petitioner had not received any part of the amount and was merely required to deposit it to clear the audit objection, he could not be held guilty of causing loss to the Government; the notice was issued after retirement and, apart from it, no departmental proceedings were initiated.ratio¶42
The respondents/State are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,41,000/- to the petitioner within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery — VAT deposit of Rs.1,41,000/- — Petitioner, while working as Block Education Officer, Ambikapur (periods 19.09.2013–06.10.2015 and 02.08.2016–25.10.2017), failed to deposit VAT payable to the Commercial Tax Department; audit objection raised by Accountant General; show-cause notice (Annexure P/6) issued only after superannuation on 31.03.2018, alleging violation of Rule 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965; no departmental enquiry held; petitioner deposited the amount from his own pocket on 07.02.2022 to secure release of retiral dues pursuant to communication dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) challenged herein; Court held the amount was an official transaction never retained by the petitioner, hence recovery is illegal; State directed to refund Rs.1,41,000/- within 60 days, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from 07.02.2022. Writ petition allowed and disposed of (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Sachin Singh Rajput, J.).

2026:CGHC:25444

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4415 of 2021

¶6

Suresh Prasad Jaiswal S/o Ramdulare Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Near Nagar Panchayat Post Office, Lakhanpur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , School Education Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar , New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions , Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The District Education Officer District Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Joint Director Treasury , Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - The Block Education Officer Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L. Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶17

22.06.2026

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s);-

¶19

10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order / direction, thereby

¶20

¶21

setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2021.

¶22

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

¶23

1. Later on by way of the order dated 19.12.2025 an application for amendment in the writ petition i.e. I.A. No. 1/2025 has been allowed and relief 10.3 has been added as follows:

¶24

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to refund the deposited VAT Tax amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of justice.

¶25

1. Facts of the case are that

¶26

(I) the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Block Education Officer, Ambikapur. During the periods from 19.09.2013 to 06.10.2015 and from 02.08.2016 to 25.10.2017, being the Block Education Officer, he was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,000/- towards VAT Tax with the Commercial Tax Department, which he failed to do. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018. Thereafter, a notice dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure P/6) was issued to him indicating that an audit objection had been raised by the Office of the Accountant General with respect to non-payment of VAT Tax amounting to Rs.1,41,000/-. It was also alleged that he had not signed the bill register and vouchers, had not put his signature in the cash register of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and had obtained paternity leave without jurisdiction, thereby violating Rule 3(1), 3(2), and 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. He was required to submit his reply within a period of 15 days.

¶27

(II) On 03.10.2019, the petitioner submitted his reply, inter alia, stating that with regard to the payment of VAT Tax, he had prepared the necessary note-sheet; however, in the meantime, he was transferred and the next incumbent had taken charge from him, and

¶28

¶29

therefore the VAT Tax could not be deposited. He further stated that the incumbent Block Education Officer could have deposited the VAT Tax. With regard to the other allegations made in the showcause notice, he submitted that he was suffering from Cancer and was undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai (Annexure P/7).

¶30

(III) Thereafter, as the retiral dues of the petitioner were not settled, the petitioner was constrained to deposit the amount of Rs.1,41,000/- during the pendency of the present petition, and the relief for recovery of the said amount was incorporated by way of amendment.

¶31

(IV) Annexure P/1 is a communication issued by the Block Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, to the District Education Officer, Ambikapur, indicating that the Accountant General had raised an audit objection in respect of the aforesaid period and that unless the amount was deposited, the audit objection would not be settled. The said communication is under challenge in the present petition.

¶32

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Block Education Officer and was required to deposit a certain amount of VAT Tax with the Commercial Tax Department of the State Government, for which he had prepared the necessary note-sheet. However, before the amount could be deposited, he was transferred. It is further submitted that an audit objection was subsequently raised by the Office of the Accountant General, pursuant to which a notice was issued to him and duly replied to.

¶33

1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure P/1). However, as the petitioner had already retired and his retiral dues were not being settled, he was compelled to deposit the entire amount of Rs.1,41,000/- on 07.02.2022, and only thereafter his retiral dues were released.

¶34

¶35

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this is not a case involving any excess payment made to the petitioner. Even assuming that the petitioner was required to deposit the VAT Tax with the concerned department, it would amount to an irregularity, as no personal benefit accrued to the petitioner. Rather, the amount of Rs.1,41,000/- was paid by the petitioner from his own pocket. It is further submitted that before effecting such recovery, neither any departmental enquiry was conducted during the petitioner's service tenure nor any proceedings were initiated, except issuance of a showcause notice. Therefore, it is prayed that the amount of Rs.1,41,000/deposited by the petitioner be directed to be refunded along with interest.

¶36

1. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that during the petitioner's tenure as Block Education Officer, Ambikapur, an audit objection was raised by the Office of the Accountant General regarding non-deposit of VAT amounting to Rs.1,41,000/-. The said amount remained payable to the Commercial Tax Department for the relevant period and the audit objection could be settled only upon deposit of the outstanding amount through the prescribed challan. Despite being repeatedly directed to deposit the said amount, the petitioner failed to do so and retired from service on 31.03.2018. Thereafter, vide communication dated 07.06.2021, the Block Education Officer requested the District Education Officer and informed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding VAT amount so that the audit objection could be considered for deletion. Thus, the impugned action is stated to be lawful and in furtherance of compliance with the audit objection. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to perform his official duties and, therefore, was bound to pay the amount. Hence, there is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order.

¶37

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶38

1. The facts appearing from the writ petition are not in dispute. From the record, it appears that during the periods from 19.09.2013 to

¶39

¶40

06.10.2015 and from 02.08.2016 to 25.10.2017, the petitioner, being the Block Education Officer, was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,000/- with the Commercial Tax Department. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. A show-cause notice (Annexure P/6) was issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2019 alleging that he had failed to perform his duties, thereby violating Rule 3(1), 3(2), and 3(3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he had prepared the requisite note-sheet and thereafter was transferred, due to which the amount could not be deposited. It further appears that subsequently the petitioner deposited the said amount as his retiral dues were not being settled.

¶41

1. It is not the case of the respondents/State that the amount of Rs.1,41,000/- was ever retained by the petitioner. Rather, it was an official transaction required to be carried out by the office for depositing the amount with the Commercial Tax Department. The record indicates that the amount was ultimately deposited by the petitioner from his own pocket, whereas in fact it was required to be deposited by the office of the Block Education Officer to the Commercial Tax Department.

¶42

1. If the petitioner had not received any part of the said amount and was merely required to deposit it in order to remove the audit objection raised by the Accountant General, he cannot necessarily be held guilty of causing any loss to the Government. The notice (Annexure P/6) was admittedly issued after the retirement of the petitioner, and apart from the said notice, no departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner had also submitted a reply explaining the reasons for nondeposit of the amount.

¶43

1. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the recovery effected from the petitioner cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the recovery made from the petitioner is held to be illegal. The respondents/State are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,41,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the

¶44

¶45

amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit, i.e., 07.02.2022.

¶46