Rule against bias in quasi-judicial proceedings vitiates an appellate order where the same member earlier dealt with the case.

The rule against bias applies where there is a reasonable likelihood of impartial adjudication being affected, and actual bias need not be proved. The principle that no person should be a judge in his own cause extends to quasi-judicial proceedings. Here, a Tribunal member who had earlier decided an interlocutory stay matter in the same case later sat on the final appellate bench, creating a disqualifying likelihood of bias. No doctrine of necessity justified his participation, and recusal was available. The second appellate order was therefore vitiated and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second appellate proceedings were vitiated because a member of the Tribunal had earlier dealt with an interlocutory matter in the same case and thereby gave rise to a likelihood of bias.

Analysis: The rule against bias applies where there is a reasonable likelihood that adjudication may not be impartial, and actual bias need not be shown. The principle that no person should be a judge in his own cause extends to quasi-judicial proceedings as well. Since the member who had earlier passed an order in the same matter at the stay stage later sat on the final appellate bench, the defect went to the validity of the proceedings. No doctrine of necessity was shown to justify his participation, and recusal was available.

Conclusion: The second appellate order was vitiated and was rightly set aside in favour of the assessee.

---