2022 (4) TMI 697 - HC - GST

Court Stays GST Order Where Same Officer Both Investigated and Adjudicated Case Under Section 74 of Delhi GST Act

The HC stayed an order passed under Section 74 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017, finding potential bias where the same officer conducted both investigation and ... Search and seizure at the petitioner’s premises - HELD THAT:- There would be a likelihood of bias, if the person, who carried out the search and seizure operation, is also empowered to conduct the adjudication proceedings. List the matter on 11.05.2022. Issues:Challenge against order passed by Assistant Commissioner under Section 74 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Allegation of bias due to the same officer carrying out investigation and passing the impugned order.Analysis:1. The writ petition challenges the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 74 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner alleges bias as the same officer, Mr. Chunni Lal Roy, who conducted the investigation and search and seizure at the petitioner's premises, also passed the impugned order.2. The document dated 23.08.2021 authorizing inspection/search and seizure at the petitioner's premises was issued in favor of Mr. Chunni Lal Roy, the officer who passed the impugned order. This raises concerns regarding potential bias in the adjudication proceedings.3. The court notes the likelihood of bias when the same person who conducted the search and seizure operation is also empowered to conduct the adjudication proceedings. In light of this, the operation of the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 is stayed temporarily.4. The respondent accepts notice, and it is mentioned that they will revert with instructions on the next date of hearing. If instructions are received to resist the petition, a counter-affidavit will be filed before the next hearing date.5. The court lists the matter for further hearing on 11.05.2022 to address the issue of potential bias and to allow both parties to present their arguments regarding the impugned order and the conduct of the officer involved in the investigation and adjudication process.