DAMODARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of assessments made by the petitioner as Sales Tax Officer, Vythiri, for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the office of the Accountant General had recorded an objection that there had been a short levy of tax payable. Ext. P1 Memo of Charges had been issued on the above basis, on 30-11-2001, while the petitioner was working as Manager of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Wayanad.

(2.) Explanation had been submitted by the petitioner as Ext. P2. He had pleaded that a verification had been conducted in the matter, and though the short levy pointed out by the office of the Accountant General was for Rs.2,66,494/-, the respective figures for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were Rs. 567/- and Rs.16,913/-. According to him, the error came to he committed in the peculiar circumstances thai the dealer had entrusted the commodity of cardamom with an auctioner who had disposed it by local sale, interstate sale and export sale and there was a failure on the part of the auctioner to collect tax on the first sale. There was no deliberate omission. Taking notice of the explanations of the petitioner, the audit objection raised by the Accountant General had been dropped as per Ext. P3 dated 03-12-2003, No further action ia seen to have been taken on the basis of the memo of charges dated 30-11-2001 thereafter. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that in view of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, his claim for promotion as Assistant Commissioner for years stands overlooked by the Departmental Promotion Committee. According to him, there was no actionable conduct from his side, the assessments had been appropriately finalised, and the files deserved to be closed, one way or the other.

(3.) The petitioner also refers to a communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Wayanad to the Deputy Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram dated 05-08-2002, wherein it is indicated that since the assessments for the years have been revised and additionally demanded Tax collected, there was no scope to proceed further in the matter and the action may be dropped. The assessee has therefore been let off. Perhaps, according to the petitioner, this might be the reason for not pursuing further proceedings on the memo of charges. But, however, an injury has been inflicted on him in the matter of advancement of his career.