T.Uma vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
W.A.No.3281 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012509272026}
and
C.M.P.No.29027 of 2026
T.Uma
D/o. R. Thirumavalavan,
Block No.151, House No.12,
Golden Jubilee Flats, Anna Nagar,
… Appellant
West Extension, Chennai-600 040.
vs.
1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Joint Commissioner (State Tax),
Chennai (South) Division,
Chennai - 600 035.
3. N.Usha,
Enquiry Officer,
Joint Commissioner (ST),
Intelligence, Chengalpattu Division,
… Respondents
Chengalpattu
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, pleased to
set aside the order dated 15.09.2026 made in WP.No.16925 of 2026 and allow
this Writ Appeal and consequently quash the charge memo dated 20.02.2026
nd
issued by the 2 Respondent in R.C.No.978/2025/A1 and consequently direct
the Respondents to extend all consequential service benefits to the appellant.
Page Nos.1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
For Appellant: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Advocate,
for Mr.R.Muniyapparaj.
For Respondents: Mr.S.Illamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader,
for R1 & R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.)
Intra-court appeal has been filed, being aggrieved by the order passed by
the Learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking a
writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the charge
memo issued to her on 20.02.2026, to quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents to extend all service approvals.
2. The Learned Single Judge had considered the prayer sought in the writ
petition and disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:
“11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of,
permitting the petitioner to participate in the enquiry
proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned charge
memo dated 20.02.2026. The respondents are directed to
conclude the entire disciplinary proceedings in question as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
and the petitioner is also directed to cooperate for the
early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.”
Page Nos.2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the charge memo does not say anything ill about the appellant or alleges illegal
gratification or any external consideration for passing the order in exercise of
power conferred under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Order passed in
good faith while exercising Quasi-judicial power cannot be subjected to
disciplinary proceedings.
4. According to the appellant, the Learned Single Judge, without
following the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India and others vs. K.K. Dhawan, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56 , and without
considering the contents of the charge memo, passed the impugned order, which
has put the appellant in disadvantageous position to face the domestic enquiry.
5. Further the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that
under Section 157 of the Act, there is an immunity for any action taken by the
officials from any prosecution or civil suit, if the action is taken in good faith.
While so, the charge memo is liable to be quashed.
6. The Special Government Pleader representing the respondents
submitted that the appellant, while discharging her duties of Assistant
Commissioner, had taken up the assessment of Tvl.Appaswamy Real Estates
Page Nos.3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
Limited , for review and undertaken fresh factual verification, reconciliation and
legal examination, thereby converting the limited power conferred under
Section 161 of the TNGST, Act, 2017, for rectification as substantial appeal
against the assessment order, which is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. In response to this averment, the Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that if it is so, the Department ought to have preferred appeal against her order
for the loss of revenue, which the Department has not thought fit to do and
therefore, the act of the appellant done in good faith cannot be a reason to
proceed against the appellant.
8. We have carefully considered the judgments relied by the Learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant.
9. The charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules enumerates four Article of Charge,
which read as below:
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I
(Willful Excess of Jurisdiction and Abuse of
Statutory Power)
That you, while functioning as Assistant
Commissioner (State Tax) (FAC), Nandanam Assessment
Page Nos.4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
Circle, Chennai, have deliberately exercised powers under
Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 far beyond its statutory contours by reopening
concluded assessment orders relating to Tvl. Appaswamy
Real Estates Limited for the assessment years from 2017-
18 to 2021-22 and undertaking fresh factual verification,
reconciliation and legal re-examination, thereby
converting the limited rectification provision into a
substitute appellate mechanism, which is ex facie illegal
and without jurisdiction.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II
(Usurpation of Appellate Authority and Subversion of
Statutory Scheme)
That you have unlawfully assumed appellate
powers vested exclusively with higher statutory authorities
by nullifying finalized adjudication orders without any
appellate mandate or lawful remand, thereby subverting
the statutory hierarchy prescribed under the TNGST Act,
2017 and rendering the adjudicatory process nugatory.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – III
(Gross Financial Impropriety and Serious Prejudice
to State Revenue)
That by passing rectification orders resulting in
reduction of confirmed tax demands aggregating to
Rs.266.46 Crore out of total demands of Rs.278.50 Crore
for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2021-22, you have
caused grave and irreversible prejudice to the State
exchequer and exposed public revenue to enormous risk,
without any legally sustainable basis or documentary
substantiation, thereby committing gross financial
Page Nos.5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
impropriety.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – IV
(Dereliction of Duty and Lack of Integrity in Quasi-
Judicial Function)
That your conduct in systematically deleting or
drastically reducing confirmed tax demands without
lawful authority demonstrates failure to discharge your
quasi-judicial duties with probity, objectivity and legal
discipline, and reflects conduct unbecoming of a
Government servant entrusted with safeguarding public
revenue, gross negligence and abuse of official position
and thereby violated rule 20(1) of the TNGSC Rules 1973.
10. The first judgment, which has also been referred by the Learned
Single Judge, is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union
of India and others vs. K.K. Dhawan , reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56 . In that
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the immunity claimed by the
public servant from disciplinary proceedings with respect to matters decided by
him in exercise of quasi-judicial functions. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has made the following observations:
“ 19. The above case, therefore, is an authority for
the proposition that disciplinary proceedings could be
initiated against the Government servant even with regard
to exercise of quasi-judicial powers provided:
Page Nos.6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
(i) The act or omission is such as to reflect on the
reputation of the Government servant for his integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty, or
(ii) there is prima facie material manifesting
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of the official
duty, or
(iii) the officer had failed to act honestly or in good
faith or had omitted to observe the prescribed conditions
which are essential for the exercise of statutory power.”
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to conclude as below:
“28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises
judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or
recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person
is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the
respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in
mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with
the correctness or legality of the decision of the
respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge
of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with
reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in
appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in
our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking
the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules.
Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be
taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as
would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith
or devotion to duty;
Page Nos.7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is
unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted
the prescribed conditions which are essential for the
exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a
party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive,
however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said
long ago “though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is
great”.
29. The instances above catalogued are not
exhaustive. However, we may add that for a mere technical
violation or merely because the order is wrong and the
action not falling under the above enumerated instances,
disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a
word of caution. Each case will depend upon the facts and
no absolute rule can be postulated.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
will stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Page Nos.8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
31. We make it clear that it is open to the
respondent to put forth all defences open to him in the
departmental inquiry which will be considered on its
merit.”
11. Reading of the said judgment indicates that there is no absolute bar to
proceed against an erring public servant, if he has acted negligently or
recklessly, or in order to confer an undue favour on any person while
discharging quasi-judicial function. Furthermore, considering the facts of the
case, the Court had granted liberty to the public servant to put forth all the
defenses in the departmental enquiry before the Enquiry Officer to consider it
on merits.
12. The second judgment relied by the Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant is Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 693. It is the case of a Tahsildar, who has
passed an order in original assessing the nature of the property, which was
considered by the higher officials as misconduct and therefore disciplinary
proceedings was initiated against him.
Page Nos.9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
13. While considering the facts of the case, the Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the Department
and restored the disciplinary proceedings and revived the charge sheet. Further
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the delinquent employee. The
Apex Court considering the peculiar facts of the case, held that an employee
should not made to suffer. After narrating the relevant facts and circumstances,
the appeal of the employee was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that
case with the following observations:
“ 16. In the present case, we are of the considered
view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the
charge sheet fall under the category of a wrongful order,
which does not appear to have been influenced by
extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears
that the order has been passed in good faith, without any
indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in
the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such
impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his
capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land
Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that
would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The
decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as
mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the
first question is answered in favor of the Appellant.”
Page Nos.10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
14. On going through the two judgments cited as precedents and the
charge memo which was issued to the appellant, we find that there is no
aberration or violation in the order of the Learned Single Judge insofar as the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two judgments cited
above. In fact, the charge memo makes a specific allegation that the appellant
has exceeded the limited power conferred under Section 161 of the TNGST Act,
2017, which reads as below:
Section 161. Rectification of errors apparent on
the face of record.-
Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 160,
and notwithstanding anything contained in any other
provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or
issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any
other document, may rectify any error which is apparent
on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or
certificate or any other document, either on its own motion
or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer
appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the
State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed
under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or
by the affected person within a period of three months
from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice
or certificate or any other document, as the case may be:
Provided that no such rectification shall be done
after a period of six months from the date of issue of such
Page Nos.11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
decision or order or notice or certificate or any other
document:
Provided further that the said period of six months
shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is
purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or
arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or
omission:
Provided also that where such rectification
adversely affects any person, the principles of natural
justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such
rectification.
15. The only defense taken by the appellant is that the action was done in
good faith and the Department has not preferred any further appeal against this
order. However, this cannot be a sword to cut the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Department at the threshold. The state has suffered huge loss
due to the order passed by the appellant have exceeded the authority conferred
under the Act.
16. This position is made well clear in the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others . It is not whether further action taken by the department due to the
misconduct of the officials matters, but the conduct of the official itself is the
Page Nos.12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
matter for consideration in the disciplinary proceedings.
17. When a prima facie case been made out against the appellant by way
of Articles of charges which says, she under the guise of rectification, has
reduced the confirmed tax demand aggregating to Rs.266.46 crores out of total
demands of Rs.278.50 crores, into Rs.17 crores, this requires scrutiny of facts.
For that purpose, the appellant has to necessarily participate in the domestic
enquiry justify her decision. She cannot run away from the said process.
18. Hence, we find no error in the order passed by the Learned Single
Judge to interfere.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (E.MANOHARAN J.)
27-10-2026
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes.
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
bsm
Page Nos.13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
To
1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Joint Commissioner (State Tax),
Chennai (South) Division,
Chennai - 600 035.
Page Nos.14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.A.No.3281 of 2026
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
E.MANOHARAN, J.
bsm
W.A.No.3281 of 2026
&
C.M.P.No.29027 of 2026
27-10-2026
Page Nos.15/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )