https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421031 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 adjudication. The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.03.2022 on grounds that the Assistant Commissioner who authorized and conducted search and seizure operations at the petitioner's premises subsequently passed the impugned order. The court recognized concerns about procedural fairness when investigation and adjudication functions are performed by the same officer. The matter was scheduled for further hearing, with the respondent given opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421031 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 adjudication. The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.03.2022 on grounds that the Assistant Commissioner who authorized and conducted search and seizure operations at the petitioner's premises subsequently passed the impugned order. The court recognized concerns about procedural fairness when investigation and adjudication functions are performed by the same officer. The matter was scheduled for further hearing, with the respondent given opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. Case-Laws GST Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421031