2006 (2) TMI 78 - HC - Income Tax

This petition filed by an advocate, who is a senior tax practitioner, seeks a declaration that the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 is bad in law and seeks to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from taking any steps in pursuance thereof. The petition invokes articles 14, 19(1)(g) - if there is one principle which runs through the entire Constitution, it is the principle of rule of law - rule of law and judicial review are basic features of the Constitution. As its integral constitutional structure, independence of the judiciary is an essential attribute of rule of law - We would be justified in admitting the petition and granting interim relief

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 invoking articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 50; Jurisdiction of High Courts being ousted by the Act; Appointment process of Tribunal members affecting independence of judiciary; Tribunal's sitting location and transfer of members; Concerns regarding pendency of tax cases and independence of judiciary; Ad interim orders passed by various High Courts; Constitutionality of setting up the Tribunal; Policy matter under article 323B of the Constitution; Judicial review and rule of law principles.

Detailed Analysis:
The petition challenges the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, primarily arguing that it ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts and vests it in a Tribunal, affecting the independence of the judiciary. The Act allows the Central Government to appoint Tribunal members based on recommendations from a committee that includes representatives from Ministries whose matters come before the Tribunal, undermining the Chief Justice of India's role. Furthermore, the Act shifts tax work from High Courts to the Tribunal, with concerns raised about the vulnerability of Tribunal members' positions due to limited tenure.

The Act mandates the Tribunal to primarily sit in Delhi, potentially disrupting the disposal of tax matters in High Courts, with no provision for a Bench in Mumbai despite its significant tax workload. Recommendations from a Parliamentary Committee suggest regular Benches in High Courts could be more effective in reducing pendency. The Act's impact on the separation of powers as per article 50 and the basic structure of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of the independence of the judiciary, is highlighted.

Various High Courts have issued ad interim orders against transferring cases to the Tribunal, reflecting concerns about the Act's implications. The respondents argue that setting up the Tribunal is a policy matter justified under article 323B and cite precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in halting statutory actions. However, the Court notes that the case involves fundamental issues regarding the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, requiring a detailed examination.

Citing previous judgments emphasizing the rule of law and judicial review as basic features of the Constitution, the Court justifies admitting the petition and granting interim relief. Respondents are given time to file a reply, and an ad interim order is issued restraining them from constituting the National Tax Tribunal and transferring pending matters until further direction on the case in March 2006.