This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Rajasthan HC Quashes GST Penalty as Same Officer Investigated & Adjudicated
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Gajmukhi Bullion Vs Additional Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Rajasthan High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
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....
Author Info
This ruling enforces a principle that GST adjudication routinely ignores.
The rule is nemo judex in causa sua: no one can be judge in their own case. When the officer who builds the investigation and the officer who adjudicates are the same person, there is a structural apprehension of bias even if the officer acted in good faith. Courts have consistently held that procedural fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings is not a technicality.
Practitioners should note:
– Check the DIN and designation on both the investigation sanction order and the adjudication order. If they match, this is a ground that can be raised in the reply to the show cause notice itself, before final order.
– This argument also holds under Article 14 , an adjudicator who was already satisfied with the investigation report cannot be expected to objectively evaluate a taxpayer-s reply challenging those very findings.
– The writ route is viable precisely because this is a question of structural bias, not a factual dispute about tax liability.
Do not wait for the final adjudication order to raise this. Raise it in the SCN reply and put it on record.