Tribunal bench continuity is essential: a reserved judgment must be pronounced by the same constitution that heard the case.

Where a Tribunal matter is heard by a duly constituted bench and judgment is reserved, the same bench must remain in existence at pronouncement for the decision to be valid. The members act as a composite body, so if one member ceases to be part of the Tribunal before delivery, the bench cannot lawfully pronounce the order because the opportunity for collective decision-making no longer exists. Applying this principle to a four-member pronouncement after one member of the original five-member bench had retired, the order was treated as without authority of law and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order passed by a Tribunal bench of four members, after one member of the five-member bench had retired before pronouncement, was without authority of law.

Analysis: Section 57 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits constitution of the Tribunal with three or more odd-numbered members and allows its functions to be discharged by benches of two or more members. However, where a matter is heard by a duly constituted bench and judgment is reserved, the bench that heard the matter must remain in existence at the time of pronouncement. The members act as a composite body and the judgment must be the operative decision of the same bench that heard the case. If, before pronouncement, one member ceases to be a member of the Tribunal, the opportunity for collective decision-making and change of mind no longer exists.

Conclusion: The order passed by the remaining four members was without authority of law and was rightly set aside in favour of the appellant.

---