Jurisdiction under tax tribunal rules cannot replace the Act's substantive remedy for challenging a Revisional Board order.

Regulation 16(1) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Regulations, 1989 was confined to interim relief during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal and could not be used as a basis for final quashing of an order of the Revisional Board. The substantive remedy for an aggrieved person lay under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, which confers jurisdiction to challenge orders passed under the relevant State Act. A contrary reading would extend the regulation beyond the parent Act and the rule-making power. The miscellaneous application was therefore not maintainable, and the Tribunal's leave to file it, along with the application itself, was set aside and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a challenge to an order of the Revisional Board could be pursued by way of a miscellaneous application under Regulation 16(1) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Regulations, 1989, or whether the proper remedy was an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.

Analysis: Regulation 16(1) permits a party to seek interim relief such as grant, extension, discharge, variation, or setting aside pending disposal of a proceeding before the Tribunal. The expression used in the regulation was read as governing relief of an interim character during the pendency of proceedings, not as a source of authority to seek final quashing of an order of the Revisional Board. Section 8 of the Act is the substantive provision that confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain a challenge by an aggrieved person against an order passed by an authority under the specified State Act. An interpretation allowing a final challenge to be brought under Regulation 16(1) would be inconsistent with the Act and the rule-making power under Section 4.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable for assailing the Revisional Board's order, and the Tribunal erred in granting leave to file it. The leave and the resultant application were set aside and dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulation framed under a taxing tribunal statute cannot be used to create a remedy for final adjudication that the parent Act reserves to the substantive jurisdictional provision; a miscellaneous application is confined to interim relief and cannot be used to seek quashing of a final order.

---