9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Entry Tax Act, the machinery provisions contained in Chapter IV and the levy of penalty under Section 19 of the Entry Tax Act are ultra vires Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution with respect to the entry of all goods (other than motor vehicles) into a local area within the state of Goa; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and declare that the Petitioner is not liable to pay tax or penalty in respect of the import of CAB into the State of Goa under the Entry Tax Act; (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction striking down the provisions of Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act insofar as it is invoked as a charging provision for the levy of tax on entry of goods into a local area within the State of Goa, for the reason that it does not provide for a measure or value on which the rate of tax is sought to be applied; (d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other Writ, Order or Direction, calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the Impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry of Goods Act, 2000 was amended to specify the foods and rates of tax of such goods. He submits that even the amended schedule does not refer to the goods with which the petitioner was concerned. He submits that in any case, the amendment of 2013 will not apply to the assessment years before 2013, which is the subject matter of the present petition. He, therefore, submits that the assessment orders and the demands made based thereof are liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Gulati submits that in any case the provisions of Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act, the machinery provisions contained in Chapter 4, and penalty provisions in Article 19 are ultra vires Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India and are liable to be declared as such. 6. After having heard Mr. Gulati for some time, we found prima facie merit in the contention based on the Doctrine of Bias, and therefore, we called upon the learned Advocate General to address us on the said issue. If this issue was to be decided in favor of the petitioner, then, there would arise no necessity of going into other issues raised by Mr. Gulati, including, in particular, the issue of the vires of the provisions of the Goa Entry Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the assessment for the year 2010-11. The appeals against the orders made for both the assessment years came up for consideration before Shri Ashok Rane, who by then, was promoted and became the First Appellate Authority. 11. Shri Ashok Rane, quite correctly recused himself when it came to consideration of appeal against the order dated 27.03.2012 concerning Assessment Year 2008-09 because this order dated 27.03.2012 was made by Shri Ashok Rane himself. Obviously, Shri Rane, could not have sat in an appeal against his own order thereby rendering the provisions for appeal, a useless formality. 12. Though, in the connected appeal, the order dated 29.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, may not have been made by Shri Ashok Rane, the facts, as well as the issue of law involved in the said appeal, was virtually identical to the facts and issue of law involved in the appeal against the order dated 27.03.2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The apprehension which the petitioner entertained that Shri Ashok Rane will not be in a position to objectively decide the appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11, was, in the peculiar facts of the present case, quite a reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is a conceptual difference between appeal and review and allowing the appeal to be heard by the same officer who had passed the basic order, would amount to reducing the appellate jurisdiction into a review jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge held that one of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man can be a judge in his own cause. The above principle is not confined to its literal interpretation to mean that if a person is a party in litigation he cannot sit and decide the same as a Judge but may also be extended in cases where he has some interest in the litigation or any party to the litigation and even to cases where he happens to be a witness of one of the parties. The said principle would also be attracted in a case where a Judge may not be a party to the cause of action in any manner aforesaid but has delivered the order/judgment which is to be tested in appeal. The learned Single Judge quoted the dictum of Lord Hewart, C.J., which says "Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". 17. Technically, Mr. Pangam may be right in submitting that Shri Ashok Rane had not made the order dated 29.03.2014 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, 'Am I biased?'; but to look at the mind of the party before him. 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that Shri Ashok Rane, ought not to have taken up and disposed of the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 29.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Tribunal, with respect, erred or rather failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, in not upholding the petitioner's contention based on the Doctrine of Bias, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. As a result, the impugned orders dated 14.01.2019 made by Shri Ashok Rane as the First Appellate Authority and the order of the Tribunal dated 27.02.2020 upholding the same, are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The petitioner's appeal against the order dated 29.03.2014 is now restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority, which shall dispose of such appeal on its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
