The court emphasized the importance of fair hearing and the need for an unbiased or impartial tribunal or authority, and directed the Delhi VAT Tribunal to forbear hearing of the appeal in the composition it had on 29-8-2012 and 7-9-2012, and continue the hearing with the two members according to its previous composition when the matter was part heard, and the petitioner’s arguments had been concluded on 27-8-2012. Ms. Nita Bali, Member (Administrative) shall not participate in the proceedings.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. This writ petition challenges the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (hereafter Tribunal) in respect of a part heard appeal pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal consists of 3 members, i.e the Chairman, a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. The petitioner’s grievance is that after two members heard the case substantially (in the absence of the third member, who had proceeded on leave) and closed hearings on its behalf, the third member sought join the bench and participate in the proceedings. This procedure is challenged as improper and in denial of a fair hearing.

2. The petitioner is a registered dealer, under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; it had filed its return for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Its returns were reassessed and additional demands were made. The writ

petitioner impugned that demand, before the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the reassessment. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals were heard, on merits-though on a preliminary issue-by the Tribunal consisting of Mr. S.K. Kaushal (Chairman) and Mr. D.C. Anand (Judicial member) on various dates, viz. 03.05.2012, 20.06.2012, 31.07.2012, 09.08.2012, 22.08.2012 and 27.08.2012. The Tribunal comprises of three members; however, on the said d six dates of hearing, the third member, Ms. Neeta Bali, was absent, and did not form part of the bench hearing the matter. She was on leave of absence. In this background, on the last date of hearing i.e. 27.8.2012 the appeals were part heard, and were adjourned to 29.08.2012. On that date, i.e. 29.08.2012, the petitioner’s appeals were placed before a three member bench consisting of Ms. Nita Bali (Administrative Member) in addition to the original two members who had heard the appeals.

3. By that date, Counsel for the petitioner (appellant therein) Mr Randhir Chawla, had concluded his arguments as is apparent from the following extract of the order dated 27-8-2012:

“Original re-assesment files pertaining to the assessment year 1989-90, 1990-91 have been produced. These files be kept on record as Sh. Chawla has pointed out certain insertions, manipulations, interpoliations and tempering of the record/order sheets in these files, which, according to Sh. Chawla, have a significant bearing on the merits of these appeals.

Part arguments heard. Sh. Chawla has made his submission regarding the assumption/vesting of the jurisdiction to re-assess by the Ld. AA u/s 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, without touching upon the merits of the reassessment orders.”

The order of that date also reflects that the members who heard the appeal were the Chairman, Mr. S.K. Kaushik, and Mr. D.C. Anand, member. In this background, when the appeals were taken up for hearing on 29-8-2012, the third member, Ms. Nita Bali, who had joined duties, after her leave of absence, also joined the bench which was hearing the petitioners’ appeals. At this, an objection was voiced on behalf of the petitioner, by its counsel that:

“..this is a part heard matter before the Tribunal presided over by the Chairman and

therefore, these three appeals be heard today by the Chairman and Member (J) as it is a part heard matter inasmuch as in these appeals arguments have been advanced on more than one occasion before the Tribunal presided over by the Chairman and the Member (J). He submitted that today this Tribunal is being presided over by the Chairman, Member (J) and Member (A) but this part heard matter cannot be heard by the bench of three members consisting of Chairman, Member (J) and Member (A). Therefore, the case be heard by only two original members, i.e the Chairman and Member (J) and today the joining of the third member, i.e Member (A) is not in accordance with the practice of functioning of the Tribunal.

Shri. A.K. Babber, Adv, Ld. Govt Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the Member (