1992 (4) TMI 232 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the revision beyond the six-month period specified in the remand order.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Hear and Dispose of the Revision Beyond Six Months:

The primary issue in this case was whether the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the revision beyond the six-month period stipulated by the remand order dated April 12, 1990. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to the six-month period, and any action taken beyond this period was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity. The respondents contended that the time-limit was not mandatory and that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction even after the six-month period.

The Tribunal's order dated April 12, 1990, directed the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal to hear and dispose of the revision within six months. The applicant's counsel argued that the Tribunal's order dated October 16, 1990, was without jurisdiction as it was passed after the expiry of the six-month period on October 12, 1990. The applicant's position was that the Tribunal's action beyond this period was null and void.

The respondents, represented by Mr. D. Majumdar, argued that the time-limit of six months was not mandatory and that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the revision. They pointed out that the revision was initially scheduled for hearing on October 10, 1990, within the six-month period, but had to be adjourned due to the absence of a Tribunal member. The hearing was subsequently held on October 16, 1990. They further argued that the applicant had not objected to the Tribunal's jurisdiction during the hearing on October 16, 1990, thereby surrendering to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal considered whether the six-month time-limit was mandatory and whether its non-compliance resulted in the Tribunal losing jurisdiction. It was noted that the jurisdiction to hear the revision afresh emanated from the remand order dated April 12, 1990. The Tribunal agreed that the time-limit was intended to expedite the disposal of an old matter but concluded that the time-limit was not of essence in conferring jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that public interest should not suffer due to the laches of public officers and noted that there were no laches in this case as the delay was minimal and due to unavoidable circumstances.

The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents and interpretations to support its conclusion. It was noted that statutory provisions are generally interpreted to be directory unless stated in a negative form or accompanied by a default clause. The Tribunal concluded that the six-month time-limit was directory and not mandatory, and its non-compliance did not deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to hear the revision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the order dated October 16, 1990, was within jurisdiction and not a nullity. The Tribunal also granted a stay of the judgment and order for six weeks to allow the applicant to move the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the six-month time-limit for disposing of the revision was directory and not mandatory. The delay in hearing the revision beyond the six-month period did not deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction. The application challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated October 16, 1990, were upheld. The operation of the judgment was stayed for six weeks to enable the applicant to approach the Supreme Court.

← Previous Next →