TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an appeal and stay application could lie against observations made in a record of personal hearing in the course of adjudication; and (ii) whether a senior counsel appearing with an advocate on record required a separate authorisation from the assessee.
Issue (i): Whether an appeal and stay application could lie against observations made in a record of personal hearing in the course of adjudication.
Analysis: The challenged material was only a record of personal hearing and not a communicated adjudicatory order deciding rights or liabilities. The absence of a specific decision barring appearance of counsel meant that the matter had not crystallised into an appealable quasi-judicial order. Treating such interlocutory observations as appealable would encourage premature litigation at the interlocutory stage. If a final ex parte adjudication were eventually passed, the aggrieved party would have an appropriate remedy against that final decision.
Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable as an appeal against a quasi-judicial decision on the facts before the Tribunal.
Issue (ii): Whether a senior counsel appearing with an advocate on record required a separate authorisation from the assessee.
Analysis: Where an advocate on record has filed a vakalatnama and is present, a separate authorisation for the senior advocate is unnecessary. The appearance of counsel before the adjudicating authority is governed by the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules. A senior advocate cannot accept briefs directly and may appear only with the advocate on record. In a quasi-judicial adjudication, there was also no objection to the Department engaging an advocate for assistance.
Conclusion: No separate authorisation was required for the senior counsel when the advocate on record had already entered appearance.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding was treated as interlocutory and not as an appeal from a final adjudicatory order, while the Tribunal clarified that a senior advocate may appear without a separate client authorisation if represented through an advocate on record.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere observations recorded during a personal hearing do not constitute an appealable quasi-judicial order, and a senior advocate appearing through an advocate on record does not require separate authorisation from the client.
TaxTMI 
