GST INDIA Biz — Validity of appellate order passed by same officer who authorized search – Sections 67(2) and 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Principle of Natural Justice (nemo judex in causa sua).

Ramjilal Mohanlal vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order: January 29, 2026

Case Law No: GSTIndiabiz/2026/14

Subject: Validity of appellate order passed by same officer who authorized search – Sections 67(2) and 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Principle of Natural Justice (nemo judex in causa sua).

Download

Description:

Facts (Background):
Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.

Court Decision:
The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.

Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.

Cases Referred by Court:
None.

Other Case Law

Khalid Buhari vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Another

Attachment of director’s bank account for company’s GST liability under Section 89 of the CGST Act without giving opportunity to discharge burden of proof.

Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025...

Anil Kumar Hajelay & Ors. v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,

Urgency of Integration of Section 105 BNSS

Facts of the CaseThe present proceedings arose out of an application filed by th...

Marfani Steel Impex, through its proprietor Mohammed Irfan Marfani vs The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors.

Show Cause Notice – Clubbing of multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – validity of consolidated show cause notice for different tax periods.

Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.05.2...