Court sets aside order due to Bench composition, emphasizing propriety and recusal. Fair adjudication ensured.

The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal due to the composition of the Bench, which included a member who had previously acted as the revisional authority in the case. The Court emphasized the importance of propriety and recusal, directing the Tribunal to rehear the matter considering the petitioner's objections. The Court highlighted the need for a fair and unbiased adjudication, leading to the disposal of the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the impugned order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal.
2. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the composition of the Bench.
3. Recusal of a member of the Tribunal who previously acted as a revisional authority.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing, filed returns under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act for the year 1994-95. The Assessing Authority allowed a refund after determining no purchase tax was payable on goods purchased within Haryana, granting a full rebate under rule 24A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules. Subsequently, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner reopened the case, leading to an appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeal, upholding the assessing authority's order. However, a review application was filed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which the petitioner objected to. The impugned order, dated March 6, 2006, entertained the review application, prompting a challenge in the writ petitions seeking to quash the order.

2. A key ground of challenge was the composition of the Bench that passed the impugned order. It was argued that one of the members, Mrs. Amarjeet Sachdeva, had previously acted as the revisional authority in the case. The learned Additional Advocate-General for Haryana conceded that the order should not have been passed by a Bench including a member who had previously exercised jurisdiction as a revisional authority. The Court acknowledged the impropriety and set aside the impugned order, directing the Haryana Tax Tribunal to rehear the matter, considering the petitioner's preliminary objections.

3. In light of the acknowledged impropriety regarding the composition of the Bench, the Court emphasized the importance of propriety and recusal in such situations. Given that Mrs. Amarjeet Sachdeva had previously dealt with the petitioner's file at the revisional stage, it was deemed appropriate for her to recuse herself from the Bench. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and instructed the Tribunal to conduct a fresh hearing, taking into account the petitioner's objections. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair and unbiased adjudication of the matter.

---