GST Officer’s Bid to Kill Lok Ayukta Complaint Dismissed by Kerala HC

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Sisir S.V. v. The Kerala Lok Ayukta & Others

Court Name: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case No.: WP(C) No. 16957 of 2020(T)

Decided on 18th August, 2020

Key Takeaways

1. Lok Ayukta proceedings cannot be easily quashed — Once the Lok Ayukta takes cognizance of a complaint and it reaches the evidence stage, the High Court will not interfere lightly.

2. Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017 — The petitioner tried to use this provision to argue the complaint was not maintainable, but the court was not persuaded to grant that declaration.

3. Alternate remedy principle — The court pointed out that if the petitioner was unhappy about the delay in disposal of the complaint, he could approach the Lok Ayukta directly for early disposal, rather than rushing to the High Court.

4. Article 226 of the Constitution of India — The court noted that invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not appropriate when an alternate and efficacious remedy was available.

5. Judicial notice of pendency — The court acknowledged that there are several complaints pending before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, which is a common reality.

Issue

The central legal questions were:

• Can the High Court quash a complaint pending before the Kerala Lok Ayukta that was filed by a business against a GST officer?
• Is the complaint maintainable given the protection under Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017?
• Can the High Court direct the Lok Ayukta to dispose of the complaint expeditiously?

Facts

• The Petitioner is Sisir S.V., a Deputy Commissioner working in the Office of the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Department, Tax Tower, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

• The Complainant (before the Lok Ayukta) is M/s. Bhima Enterprises, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director, B. Govindan.

• Back in January 2018, Bhima Enterprises filed Complaint No. 440 of 2018 (D) before the Kerala Lok Ayukta.

• In that complaint, Bhima Enterprises sought:
• A declaration under Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act that the respondents (GST officers) should not continue to hold their posts, while forwarding a report under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
• A direction to Mr. Suresh Kumar S., State Tax Officer-Intelligence (Squad III), to consider their application (Ext.P11) and pass appropriate orders.

• The Lok Ayukta took cognizance of the complaint. By the time this writ petition came up, there had already been 20 postings (hearings/dates) and the complaint had reached the evidence stage.

• Feeling aggrieved, the Deputy Commissioner (Sisir S.V.) approached the Kerala High Court in 2020, asking the court to quash the complaint and declare it not maintainable.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Side (Deputy Commissioner Sisir S.V.)

The petitioner, represented by Smt. A.K. Preetha and Sri. C. Anil Kumar, made the following arguments:

1. Quash the complaint — He sought a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P1 (the complaint before the Lok Ayukta).

2. Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017 — He argued that the complaint was not maintainable under this provision, which provides protection to officers acting in good faith under the GST law.

3. Expeditious disposal — Alternatively (and somewhat contradictorily), he also asked the court to direct the Lok Ayukta to dispose of the complaint quickly.

Respondents’ Side (Bhima Enterprises & Lok Ayukta)

The respondents’ position (as gathered from the court’s reasoning) was essentially:

1. The complaint was validly filed and the Lok Ayukta had already taken cognizance of it.

2. The matter had progressed to the evidence stage after 20 hearings — so there was no reason to quash it at this stage.

3. The petitioner had alternate remedies available, including approaching the Lok Ayukta directly for early disposal.

Key Legal Precedents

The judgment in this case is relatively brief and does not cite any prior case law or judicial precedents from other courts. However, it does reference the following statutory provisions, which are crucial:

Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017

Provides protection to GST officers — the petitioner relied on this to argue the Lok Ayukta complaint was not maintainable

Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act

Allows the Lok Ayukta to declare that a public servant should not continue in office

Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act

Deals with forwarding of reports by the Lok Ayukta

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Gives the High Court power to issue writs — the court noted this jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternate remedies exist

Judgment

The Respondents (Bhima Enterprises / Lok Ayukta) effectively won — the writ petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning

The court, led by Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, gave the following reasoning:

1. No quashing of the complaint — Since the Lok Ayukta had already taken cognizance and the complaint was at the evidence stage (after 20 hearings), there was no ground to quash it.

2. No declaration of non-maintainability — The court refused to declare the complaint as not maintainable under Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017, precisely because the Lok Ayukta had already proceeded with it.

3. No direction for expeditious disposal needed — The court noted that if the petitioner was worried about the complaint pending since 2018, he could simply approach the Lok Ayukta directly for early disposal. There was no need to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution for this purpose.

4. Alternate remedy available — The court clearly stated that the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy available, so the High Court’s writ jurisdiction was not the right avenue.

Order

“In the light of the above discussion, writ petition is dismissed.”

FAQs

Q1: Who is the petitioner and why did he go to the High Court?

The petitioner is Sisir S.V., a Deputy Commissioner in Kerala’s GST Department. He went to the High Court to quash a complaint filed against him before the Kerala Lok Ayukta by Bhima Enterprises, arguing it was not legally maintainable.

Q2: What is the Kerala Lok Ayukta and what does it do?

The Kerala Lok Ayukta is an independent anti-corruption ombudsman body in Kerala. It investigates complaints of maladministration and misconduct against public servants, including government officers.

Q3: What is Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017?

This provision offers protection to GST officers who act in good faith while performing their duties under the GST law. The petitioner tried to use this as a shield to argue the Lok Ayukta complaint against him was not maintainable. However, the court did not accept this argument at this stage.

Q4: Why did the court refuse to quash the complaint?

Because the Lok Ayukta had already taken cognizance of the complaint and it had progressed to the evidence stage after 20 hearings. Interfering at this point would not be appropriate.

Q5: What should the petitioner do now?

The court suggested that if the petitioner is concerned about the complaint dragging on since 2018, he should approach the Kerala Lok Ayukta directly and request early disposal of the complaint, rather than coming to the High Court.

Q6: Does this judgment mean the GST officer is guilty?

Absolutely not! This judgment only says the High Court will not interfere with the Lok Ayukta proceedings at this stage. The Lok Ayukta will continue its inquiry and decide the matter on merits.

Q7: What is the significance of Article 226 in this case?

Article 226 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power to issue writs. The court clarified that this power should not be used when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available — in this case, approaching the Lok Ayukta directly.

1. Petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of State Goods and Services Department, Thiruvananthapuram, has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P1 complaint made against him by M/s. Bhima Enterprises, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director, before the Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Further, petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the Kerala Lok Ayukta to consider Exhibit P1 complaint in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously.

3. Contrary to second prayer, the petitioner has also sought for a

declaration that Exhibit P1 complaint as not maintainable under Section

157 (2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017.

4. We have heard Mrs. A.K. Preetha, learned counsel for

petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. Material on record discloses that M/s. Bhima Enterprises

represented by its Managing Director has filed complaint No.440 of

2018 (D), seeking for a declaration under Section 14 of the Kerala Lok

Ayukta Act, that the respondents therein should not continue to hold

the posts while forwarding the report under Section 12(3) of the Act.

6. Petitioner/complainant has further sought for a direction to

Mr.Suresh Kumar S., State Tax Officer-Intelligence (Squad III), State

Goods and Services Department, Mini Civil Station, Neyyattinkara

(respondent No.2) to consider Ext.P11 application and pass appropriate

orders. In support of averments and prayers sought for in Complaint

No.440 of 2018, petitioner/complainant has filed 12 documents.

7. Perusal of the statement of facts filed in support of the writ

petition shows that after taking cognizance of the complaint, there was

20 postings and that adjudication of the complaint remains at the

evidence stage. Complaint has been enquired and it is at the evidence

stage.

8. Though reliance has been made on Section 157(2) of the

Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017 for a declaration that Ext.P1

complaint is not maintainable. We are not inclined to grant the third

relief as Lok Ayukta has already taken cognizance of the complaint and

it is at the evidence stage. For the above said reasons, complaint also

cannot be quashed. Writ of certiorari also cannot be granted as prayed

for. The only relief that remains to be considered is whether direction

can be issued to Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram/respondent

No.1 to dispose of Ext.P1 complaint expeditiously.

9. Judicial notice can be taken that there are several complaints

pending before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram. The

present complaint filed in January, 2018 and numbered as 440 of 2018.

If, for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved over the pendency of the

complaint from 2018, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the

Kerala Lok Ayukta for early disposal of the complaint. It cannot be said

that there is no other alternate and efficacious remedy for the petitioner

than to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for the second prayer.

In the light of the above discussion, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

S. Manikumar,Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly,

Judge