9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had remanded the appeal in T.A. Nos. 1494 of 1999 and batch dated September 28, 2004 for fresh disposal of reassessment, after supplying to the dealers concerned details of extracts of certain relevant documents, since the records were voluminous, the dealers could peruse all the records either personally or along with their authorised representative in the office of the first respondent. The petitioner was further informed that a net turnover of Rs. 11,66,400 was liable to be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent and if, after perusing the records, the petitioner had any objection to the said show cause notice, it could file its written objections within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. In reply to the said show cause notice dated January 27, 2005 the petitioner, in its letter dated February 4, 2005 informed the first respondent that in the batch of appeals in T.A. No. 1641 of 2001 and batch, Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, the then Additional State Representative had represented the State of Andhra Pradesh, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore the self same Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, the present incumbent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts. While mistakes committed bona fide are subject to correction in the next higher tier of the judicial hierarchy, an essential requirement of judicial adjudication is that the judge is impartial and neutral and is in a position to apply his mind objectively to the facts of the case put up before him. If he is pre-disposed or suffers from prejudices or has a biased mind he disqualifies himself from acting as a judge. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua.--A judge is disqualified from hearing a case in which he may be, or may fairly be suspected to be, biased. Disqualification of judicial officers/quasi-judicial authorities, for interest and bias, is based on the fundamental requirement that "it is not merely of some importance; but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". Emphasis being placed on the need to maintain public confidence in administration of justice. Bias may be defined as a pre-conceived opinion or a pre-disposition or pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so much so that such pre-disposition does not leave the mind open to conviction. It is, in fact, a condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to ensure that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." (Judicial Review of Administrative Action: de Smith, Woolf & Jowell: Fifth Edition) Factors which may give rise to bias: If it is evident that the decision-making body has made up its mind in advance of the hearing, this will naturally give rise to serious doubts about the validity of the hearing process since any such procedure would be considered to be unfair. It is all too easy for adjudicators to form a view on the basis of a multitude of factors, such as their involvement with an earlier stage in the process. In Locobail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. [2000] 1 ALL ER 65, the court of appeal held: "It would be dangerous and futile to attempt to define or list the factors, which may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias. Everything will depend on the facts, which may include the nature of the issue to be decided. We cannot, however, conceive of circumstances in which an objection could be soundly based on the religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age class, means or sexual orientation of the judge. Nor, at any rate ordinarily, could an objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the objection is raised, the weaker (other things being equal) the objection will be." In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant [2001] 1 SCC 182. The Supreme Court, while recorded its concurrence with the view expressed by the court of Appeal in Locabail's case [2000] 1 ALL ER 65, held that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusions drawn therefrom. Where there has been previous involvement in the case by a person, who should be unbiased, then the appearance of bias may be created. Any indication that an adjudicator has prejudged the case, or any indication that he may do so, will normally disqualify him. Disqualification for bias may exist where a decision-maker has an interest in the issue by virtue of his identification with one of the parties, or has otherwise indicated partisanship in relation to the issue. Tests to determine bias: In deciding the key question of what degree of suspicion determines when a decision should be set aside, on grounds of bias, courts have developed different tests which were considered as alternatives. On the one hand, there is an investigation of the real likelihood of bias. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he part of the member of a Tribunal. It was held to be unnecessary, in formulating the test of bias, to look at the matter through the eyes of the reasonable man, because the court personifies the reasonable man in such cases. It was also pointed out that the test is not concerned with the actual state of mind of the person who is alleged to be biased, as bias is insidious and may not be present in the conscious mind. Public confidence demanded that justice had to be seen to be done. This meant that the court should examine all the necessary materials so as to be satisfied that there was no danger that the alleged bias had created injustice. The House of Lords in Porter v. Magill [2002] 1 ALL ER 465, suggested a modest adjustment of the test prescribed in R v. Gough [1993] 2 ALL ER 724, and held that the court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased and must then ask whether those circumstances would lead of a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the Tribunal was biased and that the question to be considered was whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an earlier stage of the same proceedings, gives rise to a real ground for doubting his ability to bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him. The impugned order dated March 21, 2005 is vitiated by bias and is set aside. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall entrust the matter to any other Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in Guntur Region, other than Sri K. Radhakrishna Rao, to hear and decide the matter afresh from the stage after the order of remand dated September 28, 2004 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Special Standing Counsel submits that there are only two Deputy Commissioners, Commercial Taxes stationed at Guntur and interests of justice requires that choice may be given to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for making over these cases to any other Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes of his choice.
We find substance in the submission. We accordingly direct the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to make over the proceedings to any other Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes of his choice. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
