2019 (5) TMI 1276 - HC - Central Excise

Doctrine of Bias - Refusal to transfer appeal from Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana to some other Commission (Appeals) - transfer sought on the ground that wife is holding the charge of Commissioner (Appeals) and the officer who reviewed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed him to file appeal on his behalf before the Commissioner (Appeals) is her husband - there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about bias in deciding his appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana - principles of natural justice. HELD THAT - In view of the settled legal position enunciated above, the following broad principles emerge - i) Question of bias depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be an imaginary one or come into existence by an individual s perception based on figment of imagination. ii) Justice should both be done and be manifestly seen to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. iii) To adjudge the attractability of plea of bias, a court is required to adopt a deliberative and logical thinking based on the acceptable touchstone and parameters for testing such a plea and not to be guided or moved by emotions or for that matter by one s individual perception or misguided intuition. The petitioner alleges that Mrs. Charul Baranwal is holding the charge of Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana and she is wife of Commissioner who had reviewed order passed by Assistant Commissioner and directed him to file appeal on his behalf before Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the husband is holding charge of appellant whereas the wife is holding charge of appellate authority. Consequently, there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about the bias. The communication dated 5.11.2018, Annexure P.8 passed by Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh in refusing to transfer appeal of the petitioner from Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana to some other Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal of the petitioner is transferred from Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana to Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, who will decide the same afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of appeal from Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana to another Commissioner (Appeals) due to alleged bias.
2. Allegation of bias due to the relationship between the Commissioner (Appeals) and the reviewing officer.
3. Legal principles regarding bias and natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Appeal:
The petitioner sought the transfer of their appeal from Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana to another Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of bias. The appeal was initially filed before Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, who was the wife of the Commissioner who had reviewed and directed the filing of the appeal. The Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, refused this request, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

2. Allegation of Bias:
The petitioner argued that the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, Mrs. Charul Baranwal, was biased due to her marital relationship with the Commissioner who had reviewed the order and directed the appeal. The petitioner highlighted past instances where Mrs. Baranwal had ruled against them despite favorable larger bench decisions, reinforcing their apprehension of bias.

3. Legal Principles Regarding Bias:
The court examined the doctrine of bias, emphasizing that it is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The principle, derived from the maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa," implies that no one should be a judge in their own cause. The court noted that bias could be actual or perceived, and even the appearance of bias could be sufficient to invoke the doctrine. The court referenced several precedents to illustrate the principles of bias and natural justice, including the necessity for justice to be seen to be done and the importance of impartial adjudication.

Key Precedents Cited:
- B. Raja Gopal vs. General Manager, Nizam Sugar Factory Limited: Emphasized the principles of natural justice and the rule against bias.
- K.B. Sathyanarayana Rao vs. State of Karnataka: Stated that participation of a biased individual in tribunal proceedings vitiates the process.
- Union of India vs. Sanjay Jethi: Discussed the reasonable apprehension of bias and the necessity for cogent evidence.
- Bhajan Lal vs. M/s Jindal Strips Limited: Highlighted that bias could arise from personal relationships and that justice must be both done and seen to be done.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was reasonable given the relationship between the Commissioner (Appeals) and the reviewing officer. The writ petition was allowed, and the communication dated 5.11.2018 by the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, was set aside. The appeal was transferred from Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana to Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, who was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law. The court clarified that its observations were not to be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case.