The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Doctrine of Bias in the consideration of the petitioner's appeal by the First Appellate Authority.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Tarun Gulati learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Rony John and Kaif Noorani for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General who appears along with Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

2. The petitioner, by instituting the present petition seeks the following substantive reliefs:

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and declare that the levy of tax under Section 3 of the 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 Impugned Order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Goa Administrative Tribunal in Entry of Goods Appeal No. 1/2020, and after examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof, to be pleased to quash and set aside the same;"

3. Mr. Gulati, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, to begin with, submitted that the order dated 27.03.2020 made by the Goa Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Appeal No.1/2020 warrants interference, because, the Tribunal, applied incorrect principles whilst considering the issue of bias raised by the petitioner, in the context of the order dated 14.01.2019, made by Shri Ashok Rane, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (First Appellate Authority). He submits that the correct test is not actual bias but the reasonable apprehension of the bias or reasonable likelihood of bias. He submits that Shri Ashok Rane, as assessing officer, had already made an adverse order against the petitioner on 27.03.2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal against the order dated 27.03.2012 and the appeal against order dated 29.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, came up for consideration before Shri Ashok Rane, who, by then, had become the Appellate Authority. Shri Rane recused from hearing the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 but despite the protest of the petitioner, proceeded to hear and dispose of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Mr. Gulati submits that the petitioner had expressed reasonable apprehension of bias and such concerns could not have been brushed aside by Shri Rane or for that matter the Tribunal. Mr. Gulati submits that in this manner, the petitioner was deprived of the right of an effective appeal and on this ground along relief is due to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause (d) to the petition. He relied on Mohd. Chand and another v. State of U.P., through Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and others,2012 SCCOnLineAll 967, Narinder Singh Arora v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2012) 1 SCC 561, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 and ICAI v. LK Ratna,1968 4 SCC 537 in support of his submissions.

4. Mr. Gulati also submitted that before 20.05.2013 the goods on which entry tax was imposed were neither specified in the schedule nor was any