GST ADJUDICATION AND THE NEED FOR STATUTORY IMMUNITY: A CASE FOR EXTENDING THE JUDGES (PROTECTION) ACT, 1985 TO TAX AUTHORITIES

In the complex and often adversarial field of GST adjudication, officers are frequently compelled to navigate not only the statutory landscape but also the looming threat of vigilance enquiries and criminal prosecution. Thus, there appears to be an attitude ‘Let them go to Tribunal and get the remedy, why should I get into trouble’.  A recent decision of the Kerala High Court in K.P. Remadevi v. State of Kerala (CRL.MC No. 3461 of 2025) which reiterates the vital safeguard offered by the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 to quasi-judicial authorities appears to be the right signal for the right-thinking officials.

 This paper explores how adjudicating authorities under the GST law are entitled to similar protection, and how the fear of post-decisional reprisal prevents their ability to deliver justice impartially.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime mandates a healthy adjudication mechanism through properly empowered quasi-judicial officers, from the Superintendents to Additional Commissioners. However, a growing trend of criminalising procedural errors or discretionary interpretations under pressure from investigative agencies threatens to undermine this adjudicatory independence. Adjudicating authorities are increasingly reluctant to pass orders favouring taxpayers—even when warranted—due to apprehension of criminal proceedings or departmental vigilance action.

The judgment of the Kerala High Court in K.P. Remadevi offers timely judicial clarity on the quasi-judicial nature of certain executive functions and the corresponding statutory protection granted to such officers.

2. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Key Provisions

The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 provides immunity to judges—broadly interpreted—to shield them from vexatious litigation or prosecution for acts committed in discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Section 2(a): Definition of “Judge”  “Judge” includes every person who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment… or a judgment which, if confirmed by another authority, would be definitive.

Section 3(1): Immunity from Proceedings

No court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act… in the course of acting in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

Section 3(2): Exception

However, nothing in sub-section (1) precludes the Government or superior Courts from taking appropriate action if warranted.

3. The Kerala High Court Judgment: A Summary

In K.P. Remadevi, the petitioner, a former RDO, was accused of abusing her discretion in releasing vehicles seized for illegal sand mining. The Court held:

• The functions exercised under Section 23A of the Sand Act were quasi-judicial, not executive.
• Such acts, even if flawed, are protected unless mala fides are clearly established and prior sanction under Section 3(2) of the Judges Act is obtained.
• The FIR and prosecution were quashed as the prosecution failed to satisfy the pre-conditions laid down by law.

This reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to GST adjudicating officers acting under Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the CGST Act, 2017.

4. Application to GST Adjudication: Quasi-Judicial Function and Fear of Reprisal

GST adjudicating authorities are required to:

• Issue show cause notices under Sections 73/74.
• Conduct personal hearings and evaluate evidences.
• Determine tax liability, impose penalties, and pass reasoned orders.

These functions mirror the criteria of quasi-judicial authority laid down in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand [1963 KHC 538], also cited in K.P. Remadevi:

1. Application of law to facts
2. Determination of rights and liabilities
3. Observance of procedural safeguards

Despite this, GST adjudicators are often subjected to:

• Vigilance threats when orders favour taxpayers.
• Audit objections alleging “loss of revenue.”
• Pressure to confirm demand, especially in high-value cases.

5. The Chilling Effect on Justice

When adjudicating officers fear that a reasoned order favouring a taxpayer may attract vigilance or criminal inquiry:

• Discretion is suppressed.
• Natural justice is diluted.
• Taxpayers suffer from biased, pre-decided outcomes.

This not only defeats the purpose of quasi-judicial review but also results in avoidable litigation, clogging appellate for a and defeating the principle of ease of doing business.

6. Case for Structured Protection and Training

To preserve the integrity and independence of GST adjudication:

• All GST adjudicating authorities should be administratively recognised as quasi-judicial officers under Section 2(a) of the Judges Act.
• No FIR, vigilance probe, or departmental proceedings should be initiated without satisfying the test under Section 3(2).
• Mandatory training and orientation should be given on quasi-judicial discipline and protection mechanisms.
• A guideline or circular should be issued by the CBIC to prevent misuse of vigilance and audit tools against adjudicators acting in good faith.

7. Conclusion

In a tax regime as complex and evolving as GST, the adjudicating officer’s role is pivotal. The Kerala High Court’s decision in K.P. Remadevi reaffirms the constitutional and statutory position that fear cannot be the handmaiden of justice. As Lord Denning famously said, “A judge is not to be terrified into submission.” Neither should a GST adjudicator.

Without robust protection and confidence in institutional safeguards, justice in tax administration will remain an illusion. The Judges (Protection) Act must be invoked not only to shield, but to empower officers to adjudicate without fear or favour.

------

By G. Jayaprakash, Advocate