Tribunal jurisdiction depends on statutory bench composition, and consent cannot cure a single-member hearing where division-bench disposal was required.

Under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, appeals involving disputed tax and penalty above the single-member limit but within the range requiring division-bench disposal had to be heard by a properly constituted Bench of a Judicial Member and an Accounts Member. Jurisdiction depended on the statutory composition of the Tribunal, not on participation or silence at the hearing. Because jurisdiction is a matter of power and cannot be created by consent, acquiescence, or failure to object, an Accounts Member sitting alone could not validly dispose of such an appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Accounts Member of the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the total disputed amount of tax and penalty exceeded the statutory limit for single-member disposal, even though no objection to jurisdiction was raised at the hearing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 required disputes exceeding rupees five thousand but not exceeding rupees fifty thousand to be heard by a Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Accounts Member. The power to hear and decide such appeals was therefore conferred by statute on a properly constituted Bench. Jurisdiction is a question of power and not merely of procedure, and where a Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, consent, acquiescence, participation, or failure to object cannot create it. The appeal could not validly have been disposed of by the Accounts Member sitting alone when the disputed amount fell within the category requiring a Division Bench.

Conclusion: The Accounts Member had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal singly. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---