2026-VIL-741-RAJ

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – An investigation report was prepared by Deputy Commissioner and approved by Additional Commissioner for initiation of prosecution proceedings under Section 132 of CGST Act. Same Additional Commissioner who examined investigation report and approved proposal for prosecution subsequently acted as quasi-judicial adjudicating authority and imposed penalties on petitioner. Petitioner objected to dual role of same authority in investigation and adjudication - Whether same officer who approved investigation report for prosecution can act as quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate penalties arising from same set of facts – HELD - The arrangement of same officer acting as investigator, approving authority for prosecution, and quasi-judicial adjudicating authority undermines the very foundation upon which a quasi-judicial authority is expected to function. There is reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of petitioner particularly when the matter concerns exercise of quasi-judicial powers. The principle that no man can be judge in his own cause and that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done is appropriately extended to administrative bodies and all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision - The order imposing penalties is vitiated by reasonable apprehension of bias. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal are quashed and matter is remanded to competent authority to decide afresh with direction that roles of investigator, approving authority and quasi-judicial officer shall not be discharged by same individual – The petition is disposed of

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page