TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reference application had to be listed before the same Member who had passed the final order, and whether the ratio of the Supreme Court decision on the same-bench requirement applied to reference applications under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
Analysis: The same-bench requirement in Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, governing rectification applications, and Rule 31, governing reference applications, were treated as similarly worded provisions directing that the application should ordinarily be heard by the same Member or Members who heard the appeal and passed the order. The earlier Supreme Court ruling was read as laying down that the President may direct otherwise only where subsequent events, change in situation, or altered circumstances make it impossible to constitute the same Bench. Since the Member who had passed the final order was available, the ordinary rule applied and the matter ought to have been placed before that Member.
Conclusion: The ratio of the Supreme Court decision applied to reference applications as well, and the Registry was directed to list the matter before the same Member who had passed the final order.
Final Conclusion: The order settled the procedural forum for hearing the reference application by enforcing the same-bench requirement and directing compliance by the Registry.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule requires an application to be heard by the same Bench that decided the original matter, that requirement governs unless the competent authority validly directs otherwise because the original Bench cannot be constituted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
