2005 (8) TMI 627 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a person who previously represented the Government of Andhra Pradesh can hear and decide the same case as a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
2. Whether the decision taken or order passed by such a person is vitiated by bias.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Representation and Decision by the Same Person:
The core issue is whether Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, who had earlier appeared as the Additional State Representative for the Government of Andhra Pradesh before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, could subsequently hear and decide the same case as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on its remand. The petitioner argued that Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao's involvement in the case as a representative disqualified him from acting as the adjudicating authority upon remand. The court noted that having represented one of the parties in a lis before the Tribunal, Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao should have transferred the case to another officer rather than deciding it himself.

2. Bias in Decision-Making:
The judgment delves deeply into the principles of bias, emphasizing that judges or quasi-judicial authorities must be impartial and neutral. The rule against bias is fundamental to ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. Bias is defined as a pre-conceived opinion or pre-disposition that renders a judge unable to exercise impartiality. The court cited multiple precedents, including State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak and Locobail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., to underline that the appearance of bias, rather than bias in fact, is sufficient to vitiate a decision.

The court applied the "reasonable suspicion" test, which examines whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Given Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao's previous involvement, the court concluded that a fair-minded observer would indeed suspect bias. The court referenced the House of Lords' decisions in R v. Gough and Porter v. Magill, which established that the appearance of bias undermines public confidence in the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned order dated March 21, 2005, passed by Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, was vitiated by bias. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was directed to entrust the matter to another Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in the Guntur Region, other than Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, to hear and decide the matter afresh from the stage after the remand order dated September 28, 2004, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Additional Directive:
After the pronouncement of the judgment, the court acknowledged the submission by the learned Special Standing Counsel that there are only two Deputy Commissioners stationed at Guntur. To ensure justice, the court directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to make over the proceedings to any other Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes of his choice.