Judges' Disagreement: Third Member's Decision, Interim Stay, High Court Referral

The case involved a difference of opinion between judges, leading to a referral to a Third Member whose decision formed the majority order. The appellant sought an interim stay continuation, which was advised to be pursued in the High Court due to pending issues. The Tribunal directed both parties to receive a copy of the note sheet order for transparency. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures and fairness in resolving the matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Difference of opinion between judges regarding an order.
2. Appeal for interim stay continuation.
3. Direction on approaching the High Court for relief.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Difference of opinion between judges regarding an order
The case involved a situation where there was a difference of opinion between two judges, Hon'ble Vice-President and Hon'ble Member (Technical), regarding an order. As a result, the matter was referred to a Third Member, Hon'ble Shri Justice R.K. Abichandani, who heard the case and passed the order. The majority order was pronounced based on the Third Member's decision. The appellant then filed a tax appeal against this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and also filed ROM applications. The Tribunal decided that since both the original Members who heard the matter and passed the order were available, the ROM applications should be heard by a Bench consisting of these two Members. The registry was directed to ascertain the availability of both Members and fix the matter accordingly.

Issue 2: Appeal for interim stay continuation
During the proceedings, the learned Advocate for the appellant requested that the interim stay granted on a specific date be continued. However, this request was strongly opposed by the learned SDR for the Respondent, citing that the appellant's previous prayer for staying the operation of the Tribunal's order had already been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant had deposited the dues in accordance with the Tribunal's order, but was seeking a stay only in relation to interest and penalties, as these issues were covered by the ROM and were not addressed in the main order. The Tribunal, considering that the entire issue of stay was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, advised the appellant to approach the High Court for relief against the Department's action of stopping the appellant's clearances.

Issue 3: Direction on approaching the High Court for relief
As part of the decision, the Tribunal directed that a copy of the note sheet order be provided to both parties involved in the case. This step was taken to ensure transparency and clarity in the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of differences in opinion between judges, the appeal for interim stay continuation, and provided guidance on approaching the High Court for relief. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure fairness and proper legal procedures in dealing with the case.

---