TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether the observations in Elpro International Ltd. applied to reference applications under Rule 31 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 so as to require hearing by the same Members who heard the appeal. (ii) Whether the constitution and posting of reference applications were governed by the President's orders and not by a direction issued by the Bench to place the matter before a particular Member or Bench.
Issue (i): Whether the observations in Elpro International Ltd. applied to reference applications under Rule 31 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 so as to require hearing by the same Members who heard the appeal.
Analysis: Rule 31 and Rule 31A are textually different. Rule 31 speaks of the same Bench hearing the reference application unless the President directs otherwise, whereas Rule 31A requires a Bench consisting of the Members who heard the appeal, unless the President directs otherwise. The purpose of a rectification application is materially different from that of a reference application. A rectification application corrects a mistake apparent from the record and may amend the final order, while a reference application seeks settlement of a question of law by the High Court and does not involve correction of the earlier decision. The reasoning in Elpro International Ltd. concerned rectification of mistake and could not control the posting of reference applications. The long-standing practice of the Tribunal and the President's orders governing posting also supported this distinction.
Conclusion: The observations in Elpro International Ltd. did not apply to reference applications, and Rule 31 did not require the same Members who heard the appeal to hear the reference application.
Issue (ii): Whether the constitution and posting of reference applications were governed by the President's orders and not by a direction issued by the Bench to place the matter before a particular Member or Bench.
Analysis: The power to regulate roster and posting of cases lies with the President under the Tribunal's procedural framework. The Tribunal has no power analogous to Article 226 of the Constitution of India to strike down the President's orders on bench constitution. If a matter appears to have been posted before an inappropriate Bench, the proper course is to place the matter before the President for appropriate orders. A Bench cannot issue binding directions to the Registry to post the matter before a particular Member or Bench, as that would intrude upon the President's exclusive administrative domain.
Conclusion: The constitution and posting of reference applications were governed by the President's orders, and the direction in Chandra Industries was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: Reference applications are to be listed and heard according to the President's prevailing orders, and the earlier view that they must go before the original Member or Members was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the language and purpose of two procedural rules differ, a construction adopted for rectification applications under one rule cannot be transplanted to reference applications under another; roster and posting of Tribunal matters remain within the President's administrative control.
TaxTMI 
