Mandatory tribunal procedure requires recorded points of difference before Full Member hearing; waiver and alternate remedy do not cure defect.

Section 57(3) of the Haryana VAT Act is described as requiring a divided two-Member Tribunal to record the points of difference and have the matter heard by the Full Member Tribunal. The note treats this procedure as mandatory, applying the rule that when a statute prescribes a mode, it must be followed strictly; sending the matter to a third Member for an independent hearing is said to be inconsistent with the provision. It also states that waiver cannot cure a mandatory statutory defect, and that delay, laches, or availability of a reference remedy do not necessarily bar writ relief where the tribunal process is fundamentally irregular and prejudicial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, when a two-Member Bench of the Tribunal was equally divided, section 57(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required the points of difference to be stated and the matter to be heard by the Full Member Tribunal; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of waiver, delay and laches, or availability of the reference remedy.

Issue (i): Whether, when a two-Member Bench of the Tribunal was equally divided, section 57(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required the points of difference to be stated and the matter to be heard by the Full Member Tribunal.

Analysis: The provision was treated as mandatory. The statutory scheme contemplated that, where Members of a Bench differed, the points of difference had to be formulated and the matter then heard by the Full Member Tribunal. This procedure ensured that the question of law, if any, would arise from a coherent set of facts and findings. The Court held that sending the matter to a third Member for an independent hearing, instead of first recording the points of difference, was not in accordance with the statute. The rule that when a statute prescribes a manner for doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all, was applied.

Conclusion: The procedure followed by the Tribunal violated section 57(3) and the impugned tribunal order could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of waiver, delay and laches, or availability of the reference remedy.

Analysis: The Court held that there is no estoppel against statute and that a mandatory statutory procedure cannot be validated by waiver. The petitioner's attempt to pursue the reference remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction in the circumstances, especially since the statutory defect went to the root of the tribunal process and caused prejudice. Delay was also not treated as fatal in view of the nature of the challenge and the procedural irregularity complained of.

Conclusion: The objections of waiver, delay and alternative remedy were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ was allowed, the tribunal's common order was set aside, and the appeals were directed to be reheard and decided in accordance with law before the properly constituted forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific mode for resolving a divided tribunal decision, that mode is mandatory and must be strictly followed; non-compliance renders the resulting order vulnerable, and such a statutory defect is not cured by waiver or estoppel.

---