M/S Ramjilal Mohanlal vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ramjilal Mohanlal, challenged an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-Gangapur City. The original proceedings stemmed from a search and survey conducted on 06.01.2021, authorized by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, under Section 67(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that the same officer who authorized the search and survey later adjudicated their statutory appeal, violating principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 was vitiated due to a jurisdictional infirmity and a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the same officer, Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, acted as the authorizing authority for the inspection and search under Section 67 of the Act of 2017 and subsequently functioned as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. This dual role, where the officer effectively sat in appeal over his own initial authorization, contravened the foundational principle of natural justice that no one should be a judge in their own cause. Consequently, the Court quashed the appellate order. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent Appellate Authority other than Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, ensuring adherence to law and without prejudice from any prior observations. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, is liable to be quashed on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity and violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, who initially issued the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the Act of 2017, subsequently adjudicated the statutory appeal arising from those proceedings in his capacity as Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. This dual role, acting as both the authorizing officer for the initial action and the appellate adjudicator, offends the fundamental principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause, rendering the appellate order void due to inherent bias and lack of institutional impartiality. Respondents' contention: The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy against the appellate order and had not raised this objection earlier. She further contended that the order sanctioning the search and seizure was an administrative exercise performed in a different capacity.
Sections Cited
Section 67, Section 107, Rule 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order
[2026:RJ-JP:4146-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-7616/2024] 29/01/2026
The instant civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “i. To call for the record from the office of the respondents for its kind perusal; ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs for quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional
Commissioner,
Appellate
Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Zone-Bharatpur, Rajasthan and declare the same as being contrary to the principle of natural justice.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the search and survey proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the authorization for inspection and search conducted by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, on 06.01.2021 vide form GST INS-01 under Section 67(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act of 2017) read with Rule 139(1) of the RGST Rules, 2017. Upon conclusion of the inspection and search proceedings, a Show Cause notice was issued on 30.03.2023 in pursuance of the search proceedings and thereafter, the order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner firm.
Aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2023, the petitioner firm preferred an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 before the Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, who vide its order dated 11.12.2023, dismissed the appeal.
[2026:RJ-JP:4146-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-7616/2024]
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines the challenge to a singular juri ictional infirmity. It is submitted that the authorization for inspection and search dated 06.01.2021 was issued by Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the Act of 2017. The same officer, in his capacity as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, thereafter presided over and decided the statutory appeal arising from proceedings initiated pursuant to the very authorization issued by him. It is contended that such dual exercise of power, first as the authorizing authority for inspection and search, and subsequently as the appellate adjudicator, offends the foundational principle of natural justice that no person shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua), thereby vitiating the appellate order on account of inherent bias and lack of institutional impartiality.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner have had a remedy against the appellate order and ought to have taken that remedy and no such objection was raised before. She further submitted that the order of sanctioning the search and seizure was the administrative exercise performed in a different capacity.
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
[2026:RJ-JP:4146-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-7616/2024] 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. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 05.06.2023 be decided afresh by any competent Appellate Authority other than Shri Shiv Dayal Meena, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, strictly in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by any observations made herein.
The present writ petition disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 35-38-Nirmala/Shivani
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.