TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as, Addl GP, with Mr Aditya R Deolekar, AGP, in all the matters. ORAL ORDER:- (PER M S SONAK, J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Considering the issues raised, all these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order. 3. In all these Petitions, the challenge is to the Order in Original made by the Adjudicating Officer. As against such order, the Petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy of instituting an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. 4. Mr Poddar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, fairly admits that in Writ Petition Nos. 12650 of 2024 and 12710 of 2024, the Petitioners have already instituted Appeals before the Appellate Authority. 5. Mr Poddar, however, submits that in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they have no alternate and efficacious remedy in these Petitions, when in fact, even the impugned orders referred to the remedy of Appeal, which was available to the Petitioners. She pointed out that in none of these cases the objection based on alleged bias was ever raised before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Petitioners took their chances. She submitted that full opportunity was granted to the Petitioners and there was no violation of natural justice or fair play involved. 10. Ms Vyas points out that no application was filed for leading any expert evidence. Only adjournments were being applied for, and considering the facts that the adjudication proceedings have to be disposed of expeditiously and the opportunities available to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings, and only after an adverse order was made against them, have they now chosen to raise this issue. This does not appear to have been the position in a case of M/s. Tulsi Pulses through its authorised Partner Nitinkumar S/o. Mohanlal Taori v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. At least, the order dated 11 July 2025 produced before us does not reflect this view. 16. The issue of whether the Officer who was involved in the audit can adjudicate the show cause notice may or may not be arguable. However, assuming that such circumstance would suggest bias, there is equally another principle about waiver, particularly in the context of allegations of personal bias. Here, since the Petitioners participated in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as also the decisions referred to therein, we decline to entertain these Petitions. To a similar effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors Vs Greatship (India) Ltd 2022 LiveLaw SC 784 and Bank of Badoda Vs Farooq Ali Khan (2025) 171 taxmann.com 643. All these decisions persuade us not to entertain these Petitions but to relegate the Petitioners to the alternate remedy of Appeal. As noted earlier, two of the Petitioners have already instituted the Appeals challenging the impugned Orders in Original. 20. These Petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to institute the Appeal against the impugned Orders in Original. If such Appeals are indeed instituted within six we....