1. This writ petition is filed against the order of suspension dated 07.01.2022.

2. This Court passed following order on 21.02.2022:

“Instructions which have been filed in Writ – A No. 1069 of 2022 are also being used by the learned Standing Counsel in the instant writ petition to explain the case.

On 27.7.2021, certain vehicles including a vehicle being Truck No. UP 23 AT 1745 were intercepted while going from Moradabad to Delhi. It was found that the Driver of the vehicle no. UP 23 AT 1745 did not have a tax invoice and the E-way pass for the vehicle and, therefore, the vehicle was seized and detention orders were passed. Thereafter, instead of getting the vehicle released immediately, the driver answered to the show cause notice which was issued on 2.8.2021 and thereafter the petitioner passed an order on 16.8.2021 wherein, he imposed a tax of ₹ 73,236/- and penalty of 100% was also imposed. Similarly, other trucks were also subjected to tax and penalty.

The petitioner, however, subsequently found that the record as was shown by the Driver was at variance with the GST records and, therefore, he issued a further notice on 4.9.2021 and thereafter imposed penalties on 6.9.2021 which were equal to the valuations of the goods.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Officer had every authority to re-assess the matter if he had found that there was some error apparent on the face of the record.

In the instant case, the Officer/Petitioner had found that documents which were shown by the Driver were at variance with the GST records.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Amit Kumar, however, submitted that the petitioner ought not to have taken action under Section 161 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and instead should have informed his superiors who in their turn would have filed appeals under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act 2017.

A perusal of the Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shows that the appeal could have filed by the assessee.

The Court would like to know as to why action could not have been taken under Section 161 when there was definitely an error which was apparently there, namely, the details of the owners which were produced by the drivers were different from the details available on the GST portal.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel may file a short affidavit in this regard.

Place this petition as fresh on 25.2.2022.”

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that there is no case of misconduct rather the petitioner has imposed maximum penalty, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 and contended that in case prima facie charges are baseless and are framed only with an intention to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out.

4. Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submits that charge sheet has been served upon petitioner in the month of March, 2022, reply has also been submitted by petitioner and inquiry officer will conclude inquiry within a period of three months from today.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is under suspension since January, 2022, therefore, prayer for revocation of suspension be allowed.

6. Considering the above submissions and without entering into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case the departmental proceeding is not concluded within four weeks from today and there is no allegation of non cooperation of petitioner, the impugned suspension order dated 07.01.2022 will become inoperative/ under abeyance till the inquiry is concluded.