The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil vs S.SUBBULAKSHMI

WA No. 1347 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
WA No. 1347 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011946842023}
and
CMP No. 9723 of 2024
1. The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Taxes and Registration
Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai -600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Joint Commissioner (ST)
Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST),
Tirunelveli CT Division,
Tirunelveli District.
..Appellants
Vs
1. S.Subbulakshmi
W/o. A.Subramanian,
Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Retd)
2. The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, Chennai - 600 003.
..Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 06.02.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.376 of 2020
and thus render justice.
For Appellants: Mr.S.Illamvaludhi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents: A.Chandrasekaran Caveator For R1
M/s. R. Bharanidharan For R2
--------
JUDGMENT
( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J. )
st
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the State, having lost to the 1
respondent, who successfully challenged the punishment imposed on her in the
disciplinary proceedings.
2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case,
st
allowed the writ petition filed by the 1 respondent, observing as under:-
“8. On carefully going through the records, it is
seen that the assessment order that was passed by the
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, for the
Assessment Year 1993~94 was taken on challenge by
way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority, by order dated 23.12.2004,
set aside the assessment order. While doing so, the
Appellate Authority had made various observations in
the order and remanded the matter back to the
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment as per
the directions given in the order.
9. It is pursuant to the above order, the matter
once again came up before the petitioner and the
petitioner passed the re~assessment order based on
the directions given by the Appellate Authority.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the
very basis on which the charge was framed against
the petitioner is erroneous. The charge proceeds on
the ground that the petitioner, on her own, had
proceeded to re~assess the assessment and thereby,
had caused loss of revenue to the State Exchequer.
The fact remains that the re~assessment was made by
the petitioner only in compliance with the order
passed by the Appellate Authority. That apart, the
petitioner, while acting as an Assessing Officer, was
performing quasi judicial function and statutory
function and the same can never became the subject
matter of disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. If, ultimately, the re~assessment order
passed by the petitioner pursuant to the remand made
by the Appellate Authority is found to be going against
the interest of the State, the Deputy Commissioner has
power to interfere with the order u/s.32 of the
erstwhile TNGST Act. Without exercising this power,
no useful purpose would be served by initiating
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this
Court finds that the very disciplinary proceedings
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
initiated against the petitioner is illegal and there was
absolutely no basis for awarding a punishment
against the petitioner by cutting her pension and
recovering the entire amount from DCRG. The
punishment imposed by the first respondent is liable to
be set aside.
12. In the result, the order passed in G.O.(2D)
No.46, Commercial Tax and Registration (E1)
Department, dated 20.08.2019, is hereby set aside and
there shall be a direction to the respondents to rework
the pension of the petitioner based on her last drawn
salary and whatever amount has been recovered from
DCRG is also directed to be refunded to the
petitioner. The arrears of pay shall also be settled to
the petitioner. This process shall be completed within
a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.”
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact
that the finalisation of the assessment in respect of the dealer Thiru R.Thangam,
st
(Coup Contractor) by the 1 respondent has caused a huge revenue loss to the
st
Government exchequer. The 1 respondent exercised their power with
extraneous considerations, causing an undue benefit to the assessee and an
undue loss to the State.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
4. It was contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that
st
three out of the four charges framed against the 1 respondent were proved by
st
the Enquiry Officer. When an explanation was sought from the 1 respondent
against the proposed punishment, she did not respond. As a result, the
Government sought the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
st
(TNPSC) as per the pension rules. By that time, the 1 respondent had attained
superannuation and was a pensioner. After obtaining the views of the TNPSC,
and taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct causing a huge
revenue loss to the tune of Rs.31,10,949/-, a punishment of a pension cut to the
tune of Rs.2,000/- for a period of three years and the recovery of the DCRG
amount was ordered. Though this order was proportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct, the learned Single Judge misapplied the facts and law to allow the
writ petition.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions
st
and have also considered the response of the learned counsel for the 1
respondent.
st
6. The case of the 1 respondent is that she had reassessed the tax of
the dealer pursuant to the direction of the appellate authority, who had set aside
the earlier order. On the date of re-assessment, there was no existing assessment
to presume any loss to the revenue, since the earlier assessment order had
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
already been set aside by the appellate authority.
7. The judgments relied upon by the learned Special Government
Pleader do not apply to the facts of the present case, since the re-assessment was
made based on the facts and documents prevailing on the date of re-assessment.
8. The purchase from M/s.Arasu Rubber Corporation was considered
to be a second sale before the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
determining the status of Arasu Rubber Corporation; precisely for that reason,
the appellate authority had remanded the matter back for fresh assessment after
setting aside the earlier assessment order.
st
9. While so, the 1 respondent had discharged her duties bonafide in
the exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. The charges framed against
st
the 1 respondent were founded on a presumptive loss based on the assessment
made earlier that had already been set aside by the appellate authority.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge, who considered the facts of the case, has
rightly allowed the petition by setting aside the punishment imposed.
10. We find in this case that the re-assessment order, which is the
st
subject matter of the charges, was passed by the 1 respondent pursuant to the
orders passed by the appellate authority, who had observed as below:
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
“56) In order to levy taxation a dealer, the
commodity dealt in by dealer should be taxable
commodity. If the commodity is a non-taxable
commodity then the assessee could not be burdened
with the levy of tax. The assessing authority has not
verified this aspect. In these circumstances, in order to
find out whether the rubber wood is firewood
exempted from the levy of tax detailed which could
only be done by the investigation is necessary
assessing authority afresh. The entry during the
relevant year in Item No.23 of Part.D. of the I
schedule was ‘timber including sized timber but
excluding firewood’. If the rubber wood is firewood
then the entire sales turnover is excluded from the levy
of tax. This aspect to be elaborately dealt into with of
relevant materials and facts.
57) In case, it is found that rubber wood is
timber, the assessing officer has to proceed to assess
the goods as per the clarification of the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial
taxes in D.Dis.Act/Cell/II/9420 dt. 12.5.2000 and the
entry in Sl.No.23 of Part. D. of the I schedule as it
stood during the relevant year of assessment.
58) In these circumstances stated above, the
order of assessment is set aside and remanded back to
the assessing authority for re-doing the assessment as
per the directions stated above. The assessing
authority shall grant sufficient opportunity to the
appellant and the seller before deciding on the issue
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
for which the appeal is remanded.
In the result, the appeal is remanded.”
11. Therefore, it is made clear that the earlier assessment made in
respect of the dealer R.Thangam (Coup Contractor) had already been set aside
st
by the appellate authority. The 1 respondent was directed to make a re-
st
assessment of the tax payable and pursuant to the said directions, the 1
respondent passed the re-assessment order taking note of the prevailing law. It
is to be noted that the department did not prefer any revision; contrarily, it
ventured to proceed against the officer under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1978.
For easy reference, the relevant portion of the charges found proved by
the enquiry officer reads as below:
“ Charge No.1
Tmt.S.Subbulakshmi, Commercial Tax Officer,
Sivakasi-III Assessment Circle has worked as the
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in Nagercoil (Tower
Junction) Assessment Circle, from 01.06.2003 to
30.06.2005. During that period Tmt.S.Subbulakshmi,
has acted with ulterior motive and had revised the
assessment of Thiru R.Thangam, Coup Contractor
(TNGST No.886981/1993-94) in an incorrect manner.
This incorrect finalisation of the remanded case in
respect of the above dealer, has resulted in a loss of
revenue to the State Exchequer to the tune of
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
Rs.31,10,949/- and also lead to refund of tax collected
Rs.3,24,369/- together with an interest of
Rs.19,786.00.
Charge No.2
That Tmt.S.Subbulakshmi, Commercial Tax
Officer while working as Deputy Commercial Tax
Officer in the aforesaid office, in the aforesaid period,
has wantonly and with ulterior motive had failed to
produce the assessment files to the Accountant
General’s Audit as detailed in the Annexure-II of this
charge memo, thereby had prevented the Department
in quantifying the revenue loss, if any, on the
assessment finalized by her.
Charge No.4
Tmt.S.Subbulakshmi, while functioning as
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Tower
Junction) and Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi-III
Assessment Circles by her aforesaid reckless attitude,
had caused loss of revenue to the State Exchequer.
She has thereby failed to safeguard the interests of the
revenue and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a
Government Servant, violation of rule 20(i) of the
Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules,
1973.”
12. All these charges relates to the dealer R.Thangam. The re-
st
assessment order has been passed by the 1 respondent pursuant to the
observations and directions of the appellate authority.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
13. Though strong emphasis was placed by the learned Special
st
Government Pleader on the argument that the conduct of the 1 respondent
caused a loss of Rs.31,10,949/- to the State exchequer, the authorities, who were
competent to file revision against this order failed to do so. If the re-assessment
st
made by the 1 respondent was indeed improper, the department ought to have
filed a revision petition to set aside that order.
st
14. Furthermore, there is no material on record to show that the 1
respondent passed this order for any extraneous considerations or with a
malafide intention to favour the dealer. The parameters laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the K.K.Dhawan case are not satisfied in the present
st
case to take disciplinary proceedings against the 1 respondent.
15. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere the order of the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
(Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.)
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rpl
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
To
The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, Chennai - 600 003.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )

WA No. 1347 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
and
E.MANOHARAN J.
rpl
WA No. 1347 of 2024
and
CMP No. 9723 of 2024
29-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:52 pm )