9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 387 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of re-assessment order - applicability of Doctrine of Necessity - whether the proceeding in Second Appeal is not vitiated on account of association and/or order being passed by Accounts Members-I who earlier had passed an order in the self same case in Revision? - HELD THAT - The issue is about likelihood of bias and not actual bias. As explained in J. MOHAPATRA CO. VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA 1984 (8) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT the governing rule as explained in AK. KRAIPAK ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 1969 (4) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT is that no man should be a judge in his own cause. The only exception is the doctrine of necessity which does not exist in the present case. The question framed is answered in favour of the Assessee-Dealer (Petitioner) in the affirmative by holding that the proceedings in the second appeal stood vitiated on account of the Accounts Member-I, who had earlier passed an order in the same case at the interlocutory stage being a member of the Tribunal - The revision petition is disposed of.
Issues:
Bias and likelihood of bias in judicial proceedings due to a judge's prior involvement in an interlocutory application. Analysis: The revision petition before the Orissa High Court stemmed from an order of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing the Petitioner-Assessee's appeal against an assessment made under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal referred three questions to the High Court, focusing on the potential bias in the proceedings due to the involvement of an Accounts Member-I who had previously dealt with an interlocutory application in the same case. The primary issue for consideration was whether the proceedings in the second appeal were vitiated due to this association. The background of the case revealed that the dealer had erroneously included the sale of refined oil under exempted sales, leading to an under-assessment of tax. Despite the dealer's appeal and subsequent second appeal, the reassessment order was confirmed. During the second appeal, a stay application was filed, and the Accounts Member-I, who had previously dealt with the interlocutory application, was part of the Bench that decided the appeal. The High Court analyzed the likelihood of bias, emphasizing the principle that no man should be a judge in his own cause, as established in legal precedents like A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and J. Mohapatra & Company v. State of Odisha. The High Court noted that the issue at hand was not about actual bias but the potential for bias. Citing legal principles, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The Court highlighted the doctrine of necessity as an exception, which did not apply in this case. It was concluded that the Accounts Member-I could have recused himself from the Bench to avoid any perception of bias, as failing to do so could undermine the integrity of the judicial process. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, ruling in favor of the Assessee-Dealer (Petitioner) by holding that the proceedings in the second appeal were indeed vitiated due to the involvement of the Accounts Member-I who had previously handled an interlocutory application in the same case. The case was restored to the Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with the law, with specific instructions for the Petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date with a copy of the High Court's order. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
