9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 2011 could not be set aside, reviewed or recalled in any manner on administrative side by way of mechanism of constitution of fresh Tribunal. - VATAP No. 139 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2013 - HEMANT GUPTA AND TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, JJ. For the Appellant : M/s. Sandeep Goyal and K.K. Gupta For the Respondent : Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar, Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, The judgment of the court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA J.- The present appeal under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, raises the following substantial question of law: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal was justified in constituting a new Bench even after two Members out of the three-Member Bench had already signed the order? The appellant-manufacturer of petrol and diesel cars, is registered under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the Act ) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant is filing quarterly returns and discharging tax obligations. The appellant moved an application under section 56(3) of the Act seeking clarification in respect of entitlement of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jority Members and ordered to be released, the mere fact that the ministerial staff has not communicated the same to the appellant will not entitle reconstitution of the Bench subsequently. It is argued that subsequent hearing is without jurisdiction, as the majority has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to section 57 of the Act as well as the Haryana Tax Tribunal Regulations, 2004, which deal with the procedure of the orders of the Tribunal and its communication. The relevant provisions read as under: Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 57. Tribunal.-(1) The State Government may constitute a Tribunal to be called the Haryana Tax Tribunal consisting of three or more odd number of members including the Chairman as the State Government may appoint for the purpose of performing such functions and exercising such powers as may be assigned to, or conferred on, the Tribunal by or under this Act. (2) The functions of the Tribunal may be discharged by the members sitting in Benches of two or more members, as may be determined by the Chairman. (3) If the Members of a Bench are divided over some matter, the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expect in appeal filed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [2008] 8 SCC 92, observed as under: 26. It is true that once an authority exercising quasi-judicial power takes a final decision, it cannot review its decision unless the relevant statute or rules permit such review. But the question is as to at what stage an authority becomes functus officio in regard to an order made by him. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Third Edition, Volume 2, pages 1946-47) gives the following illustrative definition of the term 'functus officio': 'Thus a judge, when he has decided a question brought before him, is functus officio, and cannot review his own decision.' 27. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition, page 673) gives its meaning as follows: 'Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority.' 28. We may first refer to the position with reference to civil courts. Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with judgment and decree. Rule 1 explains when a judgment is pronounced. Sub-rule ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as neither pronounced, nor published/notified nor communicated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointing authority became functus officio when it signed the note dated January 18, 1995. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 194 has held that a judgment within the meaning of sections 99 and 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement or deliver in open court. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter. The court observed as under: 11. An important point therefore arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open court. But however it is done it must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court perfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the decision of the Tribunal is by majority of the Members. Since the majority of the Members have decided in a particular manner, the third Member even if he has not signed the same or had reservation with the view of the majority will not be of any consequence and shall not affect the opinion of the majority. The only consequence would be that in further appeal, the benefit of dissenting view may not be available to appreciate the counter view. In view of the said fact, we find that the Tribunal having decided the appeal vide order dated April 4, 2011, the same could not have been posted for rehearing and decided vide order dated May 31, 2012. Such an order is not an order of review and is not tenable on any ground. The argument that the appellant is estopped to challenge the said order is again not tenable. Though it is asserted that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the Members have signed the order, but the fact remains that the equitable principle of estoppel cannot be applied in a case where a conclusive order has been passed by a statutory authority. An order thus passed by subsequent Bench cannot be permitted to be upheld on the equitable doctrine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
