Jurisdictional objections may be raised on appeal, and conflicting Tribunal views can justify Larger Bench reference.

A pure question of jurisdiction may be raised at the appellate stage, even if it was not argued before the adjudicating authority, because competence to adjudicate goes to the root of the matter. On that basis, permission was granted to raise the additional grounds challenging jurisdiction. Where Tribunal decisions remained in conflict on whether the Collector could adjudicate under Section 11A before the 1985 amendment, the matter was considered suitable for reference to a Larger Bench to secure uniformity and certainty in decision-making. The miscellaneous application therefore succeeded, and the jurisdictional issue was carried forward for authoritative determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether permission could be granted to raise additional grounds challenging the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction; (ii) whether the conflict of views on the competence of the Collector to adjudicate under Section 11A required reference to a Larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether permission could be granted to raise additional grounds challenging the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The application was under Rule 10 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The proposed ground was a pure question of law going to the competence of the adjudicating authority. The objection that the point had not been raised before the adjudicating authority was not accepted as a bar to its consideration at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: Permission to raise the additional jurisdictional grounds was granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the conflict of views on the competence of the Collector to adjudicate under Section 11A required reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The record disclosed conflicting Tribunal decisions on whether, before the 1985 amendment, the Collector could exercise the power of adjudication contemplated under Section 11A. In view of the persistence of conflicting views, and the need for certainty in the administration of justice, the matter was considered fit for reference to a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The issue was referred to the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded and the jurisdictional controversy was carried forward for authoritative determination by a Larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure question of jurisdiction may be raised at the appellate stage, and where conflicting Tribunal views persist on a material jurisdictional issue, reference to a Larger Bench is appropriate to secure uniformity and certainty.

---