TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner under Section 122(1)(ii), (vii), (xii), (xvi) and (xvii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the CGST Act"), as well as the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure-10) passed by respondent No. 2 affirming the aforesaid order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of bullion, gems, and jewellery and is a registered person under the CGST Act and the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is further submitted that a show cause notice dated 21.05.2024 was issued proposing imposition of penalties under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the anom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the concerned authority while dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner in the order dated 16.01.2025. In this regard, learned counsel has specifically referred to Paragraph 25 of the order dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure-7), appearing at Page No. 139, and has submitted that Paragraphs 25.1, 25.2, and 25.3 thereof read as under: "25.1. Now, I come to the contention of the taxpayer that the adjudicating authority in the present case can not adjudicate the impugned SCN because the same authority had granted permission for launch of prosecution i.e. filing of criminal complaint under section 132 of the CGST Act 2017, against the noticee in the same matter. Because the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is "in accordance with natural justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting". The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but whether there is a real likelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at the time when his name was considered for selection but he did sit on the Selection Board and participated in the deliberations when the names of his rival officers were considered for selection and took part in the deliberations of the Selection Board while preparing the list of the selected candidates in order of preference. This Court held that the presence of Naquishbund vitiated the selection on the ground that there was reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection. Hegde, J. speaking on behalf of the Court countered the argument that Naquisbund did not take part in the deliberations of the Selection Board when his name was considered, by saying : But then the very fact that he was a member of the Sele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as on the part of the authority making the selection." 8. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in M/s Ramjilal Mohanlal v. Union of India & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7616/2024 (decided on 29.01.2026). 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned show cause notice was issued by Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Additional Commissioner, and that no objection was raised by the petitioner at the initial stage. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such objections at this belated stage. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the role discharged by an officer as a quasi-judicial authority is disti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the investigation report having been countersigned and approved by the same authority was not adequately addressed, notwithstanding the fact that Shri Mahipal Singh subsequently passed the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 in his quasi-judicial capacity. 13. This Court does not deem it necessary to enter into the question as to whether the multiple roles assumed by the same officer, namely, investigator, approving authority, and quasijudicial authority, actually resulted in bias or partiality in the present case. However, the reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioner cannot be ignored, particularly when the matter concerns the exercise of quasi-judicial powers. In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate ....