Single-Member Tribunal Validity: continuity of jurisdiction and the de facto doctrine protect orders despite vacancy concerns.

Where the governing statute permits the Appellate Tribunal to consist of one or more members, a single remaining qualified member may continue to function after vacancies arise, because the scheme favours continuity rather than cessation of jurisdiction. The absence of a separate notification constituting benches does not, by itself, invalidate the tribunal's functioning or the orders made by that member. Even if the member's authority were treated as defective, the de facto doctrine would protect the judicial acts from collateral challenge. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed, and the orders were not void for lack of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single Member of the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 could validly function as the Tribunal in the absence of a separate notification under the provision enabling constitution of benches, and whether the acts and orders passed by such Member were invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits the Appellate Tribunal to consist of one or more members. The provision dealing with vacancies indicates that the legislative intent is continuity of the Tribunal's functioning and not its cessation upon a vacancy. The absence of a separate notification constituting benches does not prevent the remaining qualified member from functioning where he is the only member left in office. The regulatory provision concerning withdrawal of a member also supports the position that proceedings are not invalidated merely because the composition of the Tribunal changes. In the alternative, even if the single Member's authority were defective, the de facto doctrine would preserve the validity of his judicial acts and prevent collateral challenge by litigants.

Conclusion: The single Member could validly function as the Appellate Tribunal, and the orders passed by him were not invalidated on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The challenge to jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute allows a Tribunal to consist of one or more members and contemplates prompt filling of vacancies, the remaining qualified member may continue to exercise the Tribunal's powers, and in any event his acts are protected by the de facto doctrine.

---