CHANDRA PRAKASH MISHRA versus FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 30-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
CHANDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
v.
FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2859-2861 of 2022)
MARCH 30, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Strictures: Expunction of – Adverse observations and remarks
made by the High Court against the appellant-Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Tax on ex parte orders and recovery proceedings passed
by him without proper service of notice against respondent No. 1 –
Issuance of directions in relation to his acts and omissions while
functioning as the Deputy Commissioner – Held: Every erroneous,
illegal or even perverse order/action, by itself, cannot be termed as
wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide – At the time of
drawing up the assessment orders, the appellant as the Assessing
Authority had no other registered address of the respondent No. 1
on record – His actions of passing ex parte assessment orders could
not have been termed as being deliberate or wanting in good faith
– For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good
faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something
more than mere error or fault ought to exist – Nothing concrete is
available on record to impute motives in the appellant – High Court
seems to have taken rather a sterner view of the matter, which was
not required – There was no need of stretching the matter too far
and passing further orders for imposition of costs and for
departmental actions with other comments regarding competence
of the appellant to discharge quasi-judicial functions – Amount of
costs-Rs. 2,00,000/- to be deposited by the respondent No. 1 with
the State Legal Services Authority – Strictures and observations
against the appellant expunged.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The questioned parts of the orders impugned
are annulled with appropriate order towards the amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- awarded as costs, which has been fairly given up by
the respondent No. 1. [Para 11][889-D-E]
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 876
876
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
1.2 Even when all the findings of the High Court in the
principal part of order dated 29.02.2016 are accepted, they would
only lead to the result that the impugned actions in drawing up
ex parte assessment orders and then seeking to enforce recovery
as also the impugned action in rejecting the application for
registration of change of place of business did not meet with the
approval of the High Court. Such disapproval of the High Court
had been essentially based on its interpretation of the applicable
rules as also its analysis of the factual aspects concerning the
issues involved in the writ petition. [Para 12][889-F-H]
1.3 Having examined the matter in its totality, even if the
High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities
concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in
conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even
perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an
inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action
or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the
Registering Authority; or that any ‘tactics’ were adopted, as per
the expression employed by the High Court. Every erroneous,
illegal or even perverse order/action, by itself, cannot be termed
as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide. [Para 13][889-
H; 890-A-B]
1.4 In the instant case, when admittedly the respondent
No. 1 itself had applied for registration of the change of place of
business nearly 11 months after the alleged event; and at the
time of drawing up the assessment orders, the appellant as the
Assessing Authority had no other registered address of the
respondent No. 1 on record, his actions of passing ex parte
assessment orders could not have been termed as being
deliberate or wanting in good faith, particularly in view of the
facts that attempts were indeed made from his office to get the
notices served on the respondent No. 1 at its registered address
and even at its alleged changed address at Ghaziabad. Even if
such attempts, of serving notices, were held to be illegal or
irregular by the High Court, its deduction that the impugned
actions were deliberate or lacking in good faith is difficult to be
endorsed. [Para 14][890-C-E]
CHANDRA PRAKASH MISHRA v. FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
1.5 The appellant, while functioning as an Assessing
Authority could not have kept t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.