Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2005 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 65 - HC - Income TaxOrder of the Central Administrative Tribunal - no Government order or administrative order can override the statutory provision or statutory Rule - In law if an executive instruction is contrary to statutory rules, the rules will prevail and not the executive instructions. - In our opinion, no Government Order can override the statute or statutory rule. The Income-tax Act as well as the rules made thereunder (which have been quoted above) clearly give the power to the President to decide the place of sitting of the Members including the Senior Vice-President and Vice-President of the Tribunal. If this position is not accepted, then there will be total chaos because every Senior Vice-President, Vice-President or Member can themselves choose where they will have to sit. - Tribunal has stated that there is implied admission on the part of the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the headquarters of the Senior Vice-President is at Delhi. In our opinion, there is no question of admission or estoppel against the statute - We set aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Issues:
Challenge to transfer order of Senior Vice-President of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based on statutory provisions and rules. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking to quash a transfer order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal to the Senior Vice-President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the transfer was challenged on the grounds that the respondent had completed more than four years at a particular location and that the power to decide postings and transfers lies with the President of the Tribunal as per statutory provisions. The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, particularly sections 252(5) and 255(1), which empower the President to delegate powers and decide the constitution of Benches and member postings. The court emphasized that the President's authority is akin to that of the Chief Justice of a High Court in determining judicial assignments. It was highlighted that the President has the discretion to transfer members, including Senior Vice-Presidents, to different Benches, as per the Act and the Appellate Tribunal Rules. Additionally, the court referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment that emphasized the President's role in deciding postings to various Benches. The court noted that unless there are compelling reasons, a member should not be stationed at a single place for an extended period. In this case, the respondent had already served for more than four years at a specific location, justifying the transfer order. The court also addressed the argument regarding the headquarters of the Senior Vice-President, emphasizing that any government order cannot supersede statutory provisions. It was clarified that the President has the authority to determine the sitting locations of members, and failure to adhere to this would lead to chaos and arbitrary decision-making by individual members. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Central Administrative Tribunal's observation regarding adverse inference due to missing documents, emphasizing the need to focus on legal provisions rather than procedural errors. The court highlighted that statutory rules prevail over executive instructions, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents to support this principle. In conclusion, the court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the President's authority in deciding member postings and transfer locations must be upheld to maintain the Tribunal's functional integrity.
|