Transfer of Adjudicator, and the Rule of Continuity: A GST Law Perspective

The recent ruling of the Delhi High Court re-affirming that a judge who has reserved judgment must pronounce it notwithstanding transfer, and that a successor judge cannot order a rehearing merely on account of such transfer, has important implications beyond criminal and civil trials. This paper examines the applicability of this principle to GST adjudication and appellate proceedings, where frequent transfers of adjudicating authorities often lead to reopening of concluded hearings. It argues that such re-hearings are legally unsustainable, offend principles of natural justice and administrative law, and expose GST orders to writ invalidation.

1. The Core Principle Reaffirmed

The Delhi High Court has reiterated a long-standing procedural rule: once final arguments are concluded and judgment is reserved, the adjudicatory function is substantially complete, and the judge who heard the matter alone is competent to pronounce the decision. A successor judge, merely because of transfer of the predecessor, cannot direct a rehearing.

The Court emphasised that:

• Transfer is an administrative incident, not a judicial one.
• Rehearing after reservation causes avoidable delay.
• Such delay undermines the litigant’s right to timely justice.
• Administrative arrangements must ensure pronouncement of reserved judgments.

This ruling strengthens the doctrine of continuity of adjudication, a concept rooted in fairness, efficiency, and legal certainty.

2. Jurisprudential Foundations

2.1 Continuity and Finality

Adjudication is not a clerical act. The appreciation of arguments, evaluation of evidence, and formation of conclusions are inseparably linked to the adjudicator who hears the matter. Once an order is reserved, reopening the hearing before a successor amounts to resetting the adjudicatory clock without legal justification.

2.2 Speedy Justice as a Procedural Right

Though often discussed in criminal jurisprudence, the right to speedy justice applies equally to fiscal adjudication. Tax disputes, by their nature, involve financial exposure, working-capital blockage, and compliance uncertainty. Unwarranted re-hearings compound prejudice.

2.3 Administrative Law Constraint

Administrative exigencies such as transfer cannot nullify completed quasi-judicial acts. To permit otherwise would subordinate adjudication to personnel management, a proposition alien to rule-of-law governance.

3. GST Adjudication: Structural Vulnerability

GST adjudication is particularly susceptible to this problem due to:

• High frequency of transfers of adjudicating officers
• Heavy reliance on detailed written submissions and personal hearings
• Long intervals between hearing and order

It is common for successor officers to issue notices proposing “fresh personal hearing” solely on the ground that the predecessor has been transferred, even where:

• Hearing stood concluded
• Written submissions were filed
• The matter was reserved for orders

Such practice has no statutory sanction under the CGST Act or Rules.

4. Legal Position under GST Framework

4.1 Nature of GST Adjudication

Adjudication under the CGST Act is quasi-judicial, attracting full application of:

• Principles of natural justice
• Non-arbitrariness under Article 14
• Reasoned decision-making

4.2 Section 75, CGST Act

Section 75 emphasises fair opportunity and proper determination. It does not authorise repeated or endless opportunities merely due to administrative changes.

Once opportunity has been duly granted and availed, and the matter reserved, the statute does not contemplate rehearing.

5. When Can Rehearing Be Justified? (Limited Exception)

A successor adjudicating authority may lawfully order rehearing only if:

• The hearing was not concluded or not reserved, or
• There exists a demonstrable procedural defect (e.g., denial of opportunity, non-supply of relied-upon documents)

Transfer per se is not a valid ground.

Absent such defect, rehearing is arbitrary and legally infirm.

6. Consequences of Illegal Rehearing in GST

Orders passed after such rehearing are vulnerable on multiple grounds:

• Violation of natural justice
• Arbitrary exercise of power
• Unreasonable delay in adjudication
• Abuse of administrative discretion

High Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are likely to intervene where rehearing is ordered solely due to transfer after reservation of order.

7. Practical Implications for Taxpayers and Revenue

For taxpayers:

• Strong ground to object to rehearing notices
• Basis for writ relief seeking pronouncement of reserved orders

For the Revenue:

• Need for internal administrative protocols ensuring that officers pronounce reserved orders even post-transfer
• Avoidance of litigation arising from procedurally defective adjudication

8. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces a principle that is as relevant to GST as it is to traditional courts: adjudicatory continuity cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. In GST proceedings, once a matter is heard in full and reserved for orders, the successor authority cannot lawfully reopen the hearing merely because the original officer has been transferred. Adoption of this principle in GST administration will promote certainty, reduce avoidable litigation, and strengthen the credibility of tax adjudication.