The Rajasthan High Court set aside a GST appeal after finding that the same Additional Commissioner acted as both inspecting and appellate authority, holding such dual roles under Section 107 of the GST Act violated principles of fairness and natural justice.
RAJASTHAN: The Rajasthan High Court has annulled a GST appeal decision in which the same officer, the Additional Commissioner, served both as the authorizing authority for inspection and later as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The High Court reviewed a writ petition requesting the issuance of a writ of certiorari to nullify the order issued by the Additional Commissioner, who was acting as the Appellate Authority for the Commercial Taxes Department in Zone-Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Sharma and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, stated,
“This Court, without going into the merits of the case and confining itself to the limited submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as also in view of the fact that it is not disputed by the respondents that the same officer acted as the authorizing authority for inspection and search under Section 67 of the Act of 2017 and thereafter functioned as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, is inclined to make limited interference in the matter. Consequently, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 is quashed and set aside.”
Advocate Akshay Sharma represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Mahi Yadav represented the respondent.
Factual Background
The search and survey actions were initiated following the authorization for inspection and search conducted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Rule 139(1) of the RGST Rules, 2017.
After the inspection and search proceedings concluded, a Show Cause notice was issued, leading to an order that was unfavorable to the petitioner firm. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107(1) before the Appellate Authority, which was subsequently dismissed.
Arguments and Conclusion
One of the key arguments presented by the petitioner was that the Additional Commissioner, who issued the authorization for the inspection and search, later presided over and decided the statutory appeal arising from those very proceedings.
The petitioner contended that such a dual exercise of authority violates the fundamental principle of natural justice, which stipulates that “no one should be a judge in their own cause (nemo judex in causa sua)”.
The Bench noted that the same officer had acted as the authorizing authority for inspection and search under Section 67, and then served as the Appellate Authority under Section 107.
As a result, the Bench remanded the case back to the Appellate Authority with instructions to have the petitioner’s appeal reviewed afresh by a different competent Appellate Authority, excluding the Additional Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur.
Cause Title: M/s Ramjilal Mohanlal v. Union Of India (Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7616/2024)
Read Attachment: