Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant could be impleaded as a co-appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982 on the ground that it was interested in any refund that might ultimately flow from the dispute.
Analysis: Rule 41 empowers the Tribunal to make orders or give directions necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice, but impleadment depends on whether the applicant is a necessary party for complete adjudication of the controversy. The Tribunal distinguished the cited Supreme Court order permitting intervention on special facts and found that, unlike that case, there was no direct dispute between the applicant and the department, no issue of proforma credit reversal, and no notice requiring repayment by the applicant. The refund controversy was only between the assessee and the department, and any effect on the applicant was merely incidental. A person seeking impleadment must show a bona fide and direct interest in the subject matter, not merely a collateral or personal gain-oriented interest.
Conclusion: The applicant was not a necessary party and was not entitled to be impleaded as a co-appellant; the application was dismissed.