Two-member bench required for higher-value sales tax appeals, while a single member may handle procedural stay applications.

Where the tax, fee or penalty in dispute exceeds the statutory threshold, an appeal from an appellate order under the U.P. Sales Tax Act must be heard by a Bench of two members, and a single member cannot validly dispose of the appeal or the connected condonation application. By contrast, procedural directions relating to stay of further proceedings after remand fall within the Tribunal's ancillary and procedural powers, and may be dealt with by a single member where the Act and Rules permit such regulation. The text distinguishes between jurisdiction to finally decide appeals above the threshold and competence to handle procedural stay matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, where the tax in dispute exceeded Rs. 5,000, a single-member Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal could dispose of the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. (ii) Whether a single-member Bench of the Tribunal was competent to decide the application for stay of further proceedings consequential to an order of remand.

Issue (i): Whether, where the tax in dispute exceeded Rs. 5,000, a single-member Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal could dispose of the appeal and the application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: Under section 10(10)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, an appeal from an appellate order is to be heard and disposed of by a single member only where the tax, fee or penalty in dispute does not exceed Rs. 5,000 and the order is passed by an Assistant Commissioner (Judicial); in any other case, the appeal must be heard by a Bench of two members. Since the amount involved in both matters exceeded Rs. 5,000, the appeal could not validly be disposed of by a single member.

Conclusion: The single-member disposal of the appeal and the connected delay application was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether a single-member Bench of the Tribunal was competent to decide the application for stay of further proceedings consequential to an order of remand.

Analysis: The power to grant stay is ancillary to appellate authority, and section 10(11) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act authorises the Tribunal to regulate its place of sitting, procedure, and the manner of presenting appeals and other documents, subject to the rules. Section 10(6) and Rule 69(5) deal with stay of recovery of disputed tax, fee or penalty and permit single-member disposal of such stay applications, but the present request concerned stay of further proceedings after remand. That procedural matter could validly be allocated to a single member under the Tribunal's procedural powers, and the practice adopted was not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules.

Conclusion: A single-member Bench was competent to reject the stay application.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's authority succeeded only on the appeal-disposal point and failed on the stay-application point, and the revision as a whole was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a two-member Bench for disposal of appeals above a specified tax threshold, a single member cannot finally dispose of such appeal matters, but procedural stay applications in pending appeals may be dealt with by a single member if the Act and rules permit such procedural regulation.

---