1993 (11) TMI 218 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeals when the disputed amount is Rs. 11,000 including tax and penalty.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Orissa High Court dealt with a reference made by an assessee under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear an appeal where the disputed amount was Rs. 11,000, inclusive of penalty. The assessee contended that the Accounts Member of the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the quantum of dispute. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly section 3(2-e)(a), which outlined the composition of the Tribunal based on the disputed amount of tax and penalty involved in a case. The clause specified that a Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and Accounts Member should decide disputes where the total disputed amount exceeds Rs. 5,000 but does not exceed Rs. 50,000.

The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect that cannot be conferred by consent, acquiescence, or participation. Quoting legal precedents, the judgment clarified that jurisdiction is the authority of a court or Tribunal to entertain and decide on matters, and it can only be conferred by statute, not by consent. The Court highlighted that even if the assessee did not object to the jurisdiction of the Accounts Member during the appeal hearing, it does not validate the Accounts Member's authority to decide on the case independently. The judgment underscored that jurisdiction is a question of power, not procedure, and must be strictly adhered to as prescribed by law.

In conclusion, the Court answered the reference question in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Revenue. It directed that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench as mandated by the statute, and any connected appeal under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Rules should also be reheard. The reference application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred. Justice R.K. Patra concurred with the decision, and the reference was ultimately answered in the negative.