9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 38 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRe-assessment of revision - Section 10-B of the Trade Tax Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.06.2012 reveals that the same has been adjudged upon by the Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, who at the relevant time was himself competent authority and had passed the order in relation to the revisionist in exercise of powers under Section 10(b) of the Act by means of order dated 8th June, 2009 - The order impugned further indicates that an order under Section 10(b) of the Act was duly considered by the Tribunal and the assessment against the revisionist was upheld. The order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 26th June, 2012 is set aside - The matters are remanded to the Commercial Tax Tribunal for hearing them afresh by a Bench of which Sri V.K. Singh is not a member - revision allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order due to bias of the Member adjudicating on his own earlier order. Analysis: The case involves a challenge to the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 26th June, 2012, on the grounds of bias. The revisionist objected to the Tribunal's decision as the Member, Mr. V.K. Singh, who passed the original order under Section 10-B of the Trade Tax Act, was also part of the Tribunal adjudicating on the same order. The revisionist argued that this violated the principles of natural justice as no person should be a judge in their own case. The revisionist contended that Mr. V.K. Singh should have recused himself from deciding the appeal against his own order to avoid bias, as per legal precedents like A.U. Kureshi Vs. High Court of Gujarat and others. The Tribunal's order dated 26th June, 2012, was analyzed, revealing that Mr. V.K. Singh, the Member of the Tribunal, had previously passed an order under Section 10(b) of the Act related to the revisionist. The Tribunal upheld the assessment against the revisionist, leading to the challenge based on bias. Legal principles emphasizing that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done were cited, highlighting the importance of impartiality and the avoidance of bias in judicial decisions. Citing the case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran Vs. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and others, the judgment discussed the 'real likelihood test' to determine bias in judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. The court emphasized that every member of a tribunal must act impartially to ensure fair proceedings. The judgment further elaborated on the application of rules of natural justice in cases involving administrative powers, emphasizing the need to avoid conflicts of interest and bias in decision-making processes. In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the High Court set aside the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 26th June, 2012. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing by a Bench excluding Mr. V.K. Singh to ensure a fair and unbiased adjudication. The Court directed the completion of the proceedings within three months from the date of the order's certified copy production, with the revisionist undertaking to cooperate in the process. Consequently, the revisions were allowed, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and impartiality in judicial proceedings.
|
