Tribunal composition must preserve judicial primacy, with trained members, meaningful consultation, and valid selection safeguards.

A tribunal dealing with specialised tax adjudication may include administrative or technical members, but its constitution must preserve judicial primacy: judicial members require effective consultation with the High Court, Bench composition must be headed by a judicial member, and single-member matters should ordinarily go before a judicial member. Rule 6 was read down to avoid arbitrariness by requiring administrative members to be legally qualified and judicially trained or equivalently experienced, and by requiring Joint Commissioners to have actually served the prescribed minimum period. The inconsistent Government Resolution dated 2 June 1973 was quashed, and consequential directions were issued on selection, staffing, infrastructure, digitisation, vacancy filling and computerisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisions governing the Tribunal permitted appointment of administrative or technical members and the manner of constituting Benches without violating the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers; (ii) whether the eligibility criteria in Rule 6, including the explanatory clause concerning service as Deputy Commissioner, were constitutionally valid and required reading down; (iii) whether the Government Resolution dated 2 June 1973 and the ancillary directions concerning consultation, selection, infrastructure, vacancy filling, digitisation and computerisation were liable to be interfered with or issued.

Issue (i): whether the provisions governing the Tribunal permitted appointment of administrative or technical members and the manner of constituting Benches without violating the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers.

Analysis: The statutory scheme contemplated both judicial and non-judicial members. The presence of technical or administrative members was not impermissible in principle where the Tribunal dealt with specialised tax adjudication. However, the Court accepted the State's affidavit that judicial members are appointed only after effective consultation with the High Court and that administrative or technical members do not and cannot sit singly. In that light, the functioning of the Tribunal had to preserve judicial control over single-member hearings and over the constitution of Benches.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concept of administrative or technical members failed, but it was held that judicial members must be appointed only after effective consultation with the High Court, a Bench of two or more members must be headed by a judicial member, and single-member matters must ordinarily be placed before a judicial member.

Issue (ii): whether the eligibility criteria in Rule 6, including the explanatory clause concerning service as Deputy Commissioner, were constitutionally valid and required reading down.

Analysis: The Court found an internal inconsistency in the qualification clause and the explanation. The explanation could not be allowed to operate in a manner that would dilute the stated requirement for appointment to the Tribunal. To save the rule from arbitrariness, the Court read into the rule the requirement that a person appointed as a Joint Commissioner must have actually served in that post for the prescribed minimum period, and that persons appointed under the administrative categories must possess legal qualification and judicial training or equivalent adjudicatory experience.

Conclusion: The explanatory clause was not allowed to operate in an arbitrary manner, and Rule 6 was read down so that administrative members must be legally qualified, while Joint Commissioners must have the requisite experience and judicially trained background.

Issue (iii): whether the Government Resolution dated 2 June 1973 and the ancillary directions concerning consultation, selection, infrastructure, vacancy filling, digitisation and computerisation were liable to be interfered with or issued.

Analysis: The Government Resolution was inconsistent with the read-down statutory scheme and with the requirement of a properly constituted selection mechanism. The Court also issued consequential directions to ensure timely appointments, adequate strength, infrastructure, digitisation of records, publication of orders and implementation of computerisation, treating these as necessary to the effective functioning of the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Government Resolution dated 2 June 1973 was quashed and set aside, and the consequential directions on selection, staffing, infrastructure and digitisation were issued.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part. The Tribunal's statutory framework was upheld in principle, but it was read down and supplemented by binding directions to preserve judicial primacy in adjudication, require meaningful High Court consultation, invalidate the inconsistent Government Resolution, and improve the Tribunal's functioning and infrastructure.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal handling adjudicatory tax disputes may include technical or administrative members, but its composition and appointments must preserve judicial primacy, meaningful consultation where judicial members are appointed, and legally trained or judicially experienced membership where the statutory scheme would otherwise become arbitrary or unconstitutional.

---