Collective tribunal decision requirement: separate member signatures and differing bench designations can invalidate the order

A two-member Trade Tax Tribunal bench must dispose of an appeal as a collective judicial act under the statutory scheme, with the decision reflecting the bench's majority opinion. Where the members signed and dated the order separately, and one member described himself in a different bench capacity, the order failed to show a single valid decision of the constituted bench. Separate individual expressions of opinion did not satisfy the requirement of a tribunal judgment delivered as one operative decision. The impugned order was therefore invalid and quashed, and the matter was sent back for reconstitution of the bench and fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of the Trade Tax Tribunal was valid when the two members who constituted the bench signed and dated the order separately, with one member describing himself in a different bench capacity, and whether such an order required quashing with direction for a fresh decision by a properly constituted bench.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and rule 69 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 contemplates that an appeal before a two-member bench is to be decided as a collective judicial act and in accordance with the opinion of the majority. The place of sitting and constitution of the bench are controlled by the President of the Tribunal, and a member directed to sit at a particular place must function as a member of that constituted bench for the purpose of disposal of the case. Separate signatures, separate dates, and a designation indicating a different bench identity undermine the requirement of a single valid decision of the bench. A judgment becomes operative only when delivered as the decision of the court or tribunal as a whole, and not as isolated individual expressions of opinion.

Conclusion: The impugned order was invalid and was rightly quashed. The matter had to be placed before the President of the Tribunal for reconstitution of the bench and for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

---