Patna High Court Admonishes GST Asst. Commissioner For Tampering With Records, Warns of Strict Disciplinary Action in Future
Patna High Court Admonishes GST Asst. Commissioner For Tampering With Records, Warns of Strict Disciplinary Action in Future
The Patna High Court has admonished the GST Assistant Commissioner, Ms. Kumari Anu Soni for tampering with records, and warned of strict disciplinary action in future.
The bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha has observed that the inspection report, therefore, does not contain the names and signatures of two independent witnesses which is the mandatory requirement of Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. To cover up this serious deficiency, the GST Assistant Commissioner have mentioned the name of two persons, namely- Santosh Kumar, Barauli, Gopalganj and Ramashish Prasad, Gopalganj as witnesses in the order of seizure and contended that they were the independent witnesses at the time of the inspection.
The bench added that clearly it appears to be an afterthought done with the motive to simply cover-up the lacuna because if Santosh Kumar and Ramashish Prasad were present as independent witnesses at the time of inspection and seizure then why their signatures were not taken as independent witnesses on the inspection report and further as to why the order of seizure purported to have been prepared on the site of the inspection on 18.01.2024 did not contain the signature of the proprietor or their two representatives who had signed the inspection report.
The bench held that the order of seizure appears to have been prepared not on the spot but later only to cover up the serious lacunas existing in the inspection report in which the presence of the two independent witnesses was not recorded which made the inspection/seizure unsustainable in law.
The petitioner/assessee has raised the issue relating to tampering/interpolation made by the Officer, Ms. Kumari Anu Soni, who on the relevant date i.e. 18.01.2024 had conducted the inspection of the petitioner’s establishment in the capacity of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax and had prepared the order of seizure.
It was found that the original order of seizure had been tampered/interpolated. In the order of seizure as against Column No. (A)- Details of Goods Seized, the words ‘As Per Physical Verification’ were not mentioned but in the original order of seizure the words ‘As Per Physical Verification’ had been inserted/interpolated by Ms. Kumari Anu Soni who had signed and prepared the order of seizure. It is due to this reason that by order had ordered for personal appearance of Ms. Kumari Anu Soni, who is now posted as Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.
While physically appearing before the Court when she was confronted with the position she admitted that she had entered the words ‘As Per Physical Verification’ in the original order of seizure. She also admitted to having done this tampering/ interpolation in the original order of seizure when the present case was pending and the entire matter was subjudice.
After having accepted her mistake she begged for an apology. This Court directed Ms. Kumari Anu Soni to file her personal affidavit admitting to have tampered/interpolated in the order of seizure and to give an undertaking that she will not commit such mistake in future.
The court stated that although the conduct of Ms. Kumari Anu Soni is a serious misconduct for which the disciplinary proceeding against her can be initiated but given the fact that she had no previous experience of search and seizure and she being a young officer we are taking a lenient view in the matter by admonishing her, henceforth if she commits a misconduct of this nature then, taking a serious view of the matter, she should be subjected to a disciplinary proceeding for being appropriately punished by disciplinary authority or court of law.
The court admonished Ms. Kumari Anu Soni, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to not tamper with any departmental/court record in future, failing which disciplinary authority or this court will be constrained to order for disciplinary action to be taken against her.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors Versus The State of Bihar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13674 of 2024
Date: 25-04-2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Bijay Kumar Gupta
Counsel For Respondent: Government Advocate
Read More: CBIC Directs PSUs on Delay in Providing Records to C&AG Auditor
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
