Tribunal procedure by commission upheld, but handwriting comparison set aside for unfair use of non-contemporaneous specimen signatures.

Regulation 37 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966 was held consistent with section 53 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 because it merely regulated the Tribunal's existing civil-court powers by permitting commission for examination or interrogation, and did not conflict with the parent Act. However, the handwriting expert's opinion was rejected because specimen signatures taken in 2001 were used to test a disputed signature from 1987, which was found to be an unfair comparison method. The report and consequential proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration using contemporaneous admitted signatures and other permissible material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether regulation 37 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966, which permits the Tribunal to issue a commission for examination or interrogation, was inconsistent with section 53 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the handwriting expert's opinion based on specimen signatures taken in 2001 for comparison with a disputed signature of 1987 was obtained by a fair and proper procedure.

Issue (i): Whether regulation 37 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966, which permits the Tribunal to issue a commission for examination or interrogation, was inconsistent with section 53 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 53 confers on the Tribunal the powers of a civil court in respect of summoning and examining persons on oath and compelling production of documents. Regulation 37 only regulates the manner in which that jurisdiction may be exercised by enabling the Tribunal to issue a commission in appropriate cases. The regulation was framed with the previous sanction of the Government and operated only as a procedural aid to the exercise of an existing judicial power. No inconsistency with the parent Act was found.

Conclusion: Regulation 37 was held to be valid and consistent with section 53 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the handwriting expert's opinion based on specimen signatures taken in 2001 for comparison with a disputed signature of 1987 was obtained by a fair and proper procedure.

Analysis: The disputed document related to an earlier period, but the specimen signatures were taken in 2001 with knowledge that they would be used for comparison. The Tribunal also had contemporaneous signatures available in its records. Comparing the disputed signature only with specimen signatures taken for the very purpose of the inquiry was found to be unfair and unreasonable, because the genuineness of the old signature ought to have been tested against contemporaneous admitted signatures.

Conclusion: The expert's report and the consequential proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to use contemporaneous signatures and to obtain the State's list of experts.

Final Conclusion: The validity of the procedural regulation was upheld, but the handwriting inquiry was set aside for want of a fair comparison method, and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal vested with civil-court powers may regulate procedure by commission unless expressly prohibited, but forensic comparison of handwriting must be conducted against contemporaneous admitted signatures to ensure fairness and reliability.

---