Gajmukhi Bullion Vs Additional Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2025 imposing penalties under Section 122(1)(ii), (vii), (xii), (xvi) and (xvii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), and the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.01.2026 affirming the said order. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of bullion, gems and jewellery and registered under the CGST Act and the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been issued a show cause notice dated 21.05.2024 proposing imposition of penalties under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner contended that Shri Mahipal Singh, Additional Commissioner, had examined and approved the investigation report on 13.02.2023 for initiation of prosecution proceedings under Section 132 of the CGST Act and thereafter acted as the quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate the same matter, ultimately passing the Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2025. It was submitted that the petitioner had objected to the same authority adjudicating the proceedings after having been involved in approving the investigation report. The petitioner also challenged the appellate order, contending that it rejected the appeal in a cryptic manner by holding that the same officer acting as investigator or adjudicator did not affect the validity of the proceedings. The petitioner relied upon the investigation report, which had been prepared by the Deputy Commissioner and countersigned and approved by the Additional Commissioner, and referred to paragraph 25 of the adjudication order, wherein the adjudicating authority rejected the objection by observing that prosecution under Section 132(6) required the Commissioner’s sanction and that the Additional Commissioner was acting as a quasi-judicial authority. The petitioner also relied upon the decisions in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and M/s Ramjilal Mohanlal v. Union of India & Ors..
Comments are closed.