[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court

Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that

“While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”

Petitioner approached the High Court against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Grade - II (Appeal-1), Commercial Tax Department, Varanasi on grounds that the appeal against search under section 130, read with section 122 of the GST Act was rejected without consideration of material on record. Petitioner pleaded that the law had been settled by the High Court in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 & Another and M/s Janta Machine Tools Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others.

On earlier date of hearing, the Court observed

“On almost every day, it has been noticed by this Court that in spite of the law settled by this Court as well as Apex Court, the GST authorities are acting at their whims and fancies and passing orders contrary to the settled principles laid down by this Court and the present case is one of the glaring examples of the same.”

It further observed that

“The decisions of this Court are precedents/rulings and thus, are binding judicial pronouncements upon the subordinate judiciary/tribunal. The precedents maintain judicial uniformity, by which disharmony in the application of law is self avoided. The binding precedent is important in hierarchy of Courts. For working of the same, it is necessary that the judgements/orders of the higher courts are followed unreservedly; otherwise, there will be a judicial chaos.”

Thereafter, the Court had called for affidavit from Additional Commissioner, Grade - II (Appeal-1), Commercial Tax Department, Varanasi to explain his conduct in passing the orders.

Subsequently, the affidavit was filed wherein it was stated that the judgments referred by the petitioner before the High Court were after the passing of the impugned order and therefore could not be considered at the time of passing of the order in appeal.

The Court observed that the judgment in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar was prior to the passing of the impugned order and was not replied to by the Additional Commissioner in his affidavit. Accordingly, the case was adjourned at the request of the Standing Counsel with a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the Additional Commissioner.

Lastly, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow to file his personal affidavit explaining as to why the officers of the State are not following the orders passed by the writ Court. It has further directed the Principal Secretary to “formulate and disseminate a comprehensive & structured road map to ensure that all the concerned officers are duly updated regarding the recent judicial pronouncements.”

The case is next listed on 09.09.2025.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order