In a stern reminder to quasi-judicial authorities about their constitutional obligations, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday, December 18, 2025, directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut, for filing a misleading personal affidavit before the Court.
The Court found that despite being given repeated opportunities, the officer failed to place a truthful and satisfactory explanation on record and instead attempted to mislead the judiciary, striking at the very foundation of judicial trust.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose out of a challenge to an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner under the GST regime. The petitioner had alleged that the impugned appellate order suffered from complete non-application of mind, was mechanically passed, and violated principles of natural justice.
During the course of hearing, the High Court sought a personal affidavit from the appellate authority to explain the manner in which the order was passed.
Court’s Findings on Misleading Affidavits
The Court noted that the officer was afforded two opportunities to file a proper and candid personal affidavit. However, instead of clarifying the position, the second affidavit worsened the matter.
In the second affidavit, the respondent claimed that while passing the impugned appellate order, reliance was placed on a circular dated September 10, 2025. The Court, upon perusal of the appellate order, found this assertion to be demonstrably false.
The High Court categorically observed that:
- The impugned order did not even remotely refer to or consider the said circular.
- There was no discussion, analysis, or application of the circular’s contents in the reasoning of the order.
- The statement made on oath was therefore misleading and untrue.
“Copy-Paste” Adjudication and Lack of Application of Mind
A particularly serious allegation, which found favour with the Court, was that the appellate order was nothing more than a “copy-paste” exercise.
It was pleaded—and prima facie accepted—that:
- The order merely reproduced a report signed by another officer.
- It also quoted proceedings of an entirely different assessee.
- There was no independent reasoning, evaluation of facts, or adjudication of the grounds raised by the petitioner.
The Court expressed concern that such orders reduce the appellate process to a mere formality, defeating the statutory purpose of appeal and eroding taxpayer confidence in the system.
Criminal Contempt Proceedings Ordered
Taking serious exception to the filing of a misleading affidavit, the High Court held that such conduct amounted to an attempt to deceive the Court, which squarely falls within the ambit of criminal contempt.
Accordingly, the Court:
- Directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
- Ordered issuance of a criminal contempt notice, returnable on January 20, 2026.
The Court underscored that officers discharging quasi-judicial functions are expected to maintain the highest standards of candour, fairness, and integrity, particularly when filing affidavits on oath before constitutional courts.
Additional Time Granted — But With a Caveat
At the request of the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, the Court granted the respondent two additional weeks to file a “better affidavit.” However, the indulgence was clearly not unconditional.
The matter has now been listed for January 6, 2026, with the Court making it clear that:
- Any further attempt to evade responsibility or misstate facts would be viewed very seriously.
- The affidavit must specifically explain how the appellate order was passed and why the circular was allegedly relied upon despite its absence from the order.
Significance of the Ruling
This order sends a strong message across administrative and tax authorities that:
- Affidavits are solemn statements, not casual pleadings.
- Misleading the Court, particularly to justify a flawed order, can expose officers to personal criminal liability.
- “Copy-paste” adjudication and mechanical disposal of appeals will not be tolerated.
The ruling reinforces judicial intolerance towards bureaucratic arbitrariness and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the sanctity of the adjudicatory process under tax laws.