Issues: (i) Whether revisional proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 are timely where records are called for within four years but the revisional order is passed thereafter; (ii) Whether deductions of security, transportation and fuel charges in determining taxable turnover of a works contract could be revised under Section 64, and whether an assessee can claim additional expenditure in such revision; (iii) Whether the revisional order concerning input tax credit required fresh adjudication under the standards governing proof of genuine purchases.

Issue (i): Whether revisional proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 are timely where records are called for within four years but the revisional order is passed thereafter.

Analysis: Calling for records within four years from the order sought to be revised constitutes initiation of revisional proceedings under Section 64. However, the statutory scheme, read with the five-year record-retention requirement under Section 32, does not permit the revisional authority to keep proceedings pending indefinitely. The show-cause notice and final revisional order must be completed within five years from the order proposed to be revised.

Conclusion: A revision is valid where records are called for within four years and the final order is made within five years from the original order. Revisional orders made beyond five years are barred by limitation and are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deductions of security, transportation and fuel charges in determining taxable turnover of a works contract could be revised under Section 64, and whether an assessee can claim additional expenditure in such revision.

Analysis: Security charges are manpower charges and fall within "other like charges" under Rule 3(2)(l), construed ejusdem generis with labour charges. Transportation expenditure relating to goods not involving transfer of property in the execution of the works contract is deductible. Fuel expenditure is covered by Explanation II to Rule 3(2). Where the assessing authority had allowed such deductions after examining records and applying a legally permissible view, a contrary revisional view was merely a change of opinion and did not satisfy the twin requirements that the original order be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Conversely, suo motu revision is not a proceeding for reducing an assessee's tax liability through a fresh claim for expenditure not made in reassessment.

Conclusion: Revision disallowing the security, transportation and fuel deductions was without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee. An additional labour-expenditure claim not made in reassessment cannot be raised for the assessee's benefit in Section 64 revision, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional order concerning input tax credit required fresh adjudication under the standards governing proof of genuine purchases.

Analysis: The validity of initiation of the revision was sustained. Since the revisional order pre-dated the governing standards requiring a purchasing dealer to establish genuine transactions and physical movement of goods through cogent supporting material, the assessee was required to receive an opportunity to produce evidence satisfying those standards.

Conclusion: The revisional order on input tax credit was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant evidence.

Final Conclusion: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64 remains subject both to timely initiation and completion within the reasonable outer period derived from the statutory scheme; orders exceeding that outer period cannot survive, while matters requiring application of subsequently clarified standards require fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 64 permits revision initiated by calling for records within four years but prescribes no express period for final adjudication, the statutory scheme requires the revisional order to be made within five years from the order sought to be revised.

Issues: Whether the impugned notification could be applied to deny or reduce input tax credit in respect of goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce; and whether the show cause notice founded on such denial was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification could be applied to deny or reduce input tax credit in respect of goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.

Analysis: The earlier judgment upholding the notification was treated as not governing this specific controversy because the aspect of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the context of both purchase and sale of declared goods, had not been consciously decided there. Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India read with section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 requires reimbursement of the State tax levied on declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 11(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits specification of goods for partial or full credit denial, but it cannot override the Central Act so as to curtail the extent of reimbursement mandated by section 15(b).

Conclusion: The notification could not operate to reduce input tax credit for goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods, and it had to be read down to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice founded on such denial was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the notification was held inapplicable to the petitioners' declared goods transactions, the basis of the notice disappeared.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the notification could not be enforced against declared goods purchased and resold in inter-State trade, while its general validity was maintained; the consequential notice was invalidated.

Ratio Decidendi: A State notification issued under a VAT law cannot curtail the reimbursement of tax mandated by section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for goods that are both purchased and sold as declared goods in inter-State trade or commerce.

Issues: Whether taxable turnover may be enhanced through best judgment assessment merely because books of account were unavailable during survey and loose papers were found, despite the papers being explained and absence of material showing purchases from unregistered dealers or suppression of transactions.

Analysis: The loose papers recovered during survey were explained and their entries were verifiable from the regular books. The accepted factual findings established that the assessee dealt in branded ready-made garments purchased from registered in-State dealers against tax invoices. Although non-production of books during survey could justify rejection of the books, it did not by itself furnish a basis to enhance turnover. No adverse material established unrecorded purchases from unregistered dealers, suppression, or concealment. A best judgment assessment and enhancement of turnover require cogent supporting material and cannot rest on presumptions or surmises.

Conclusion: The enhancement of turnover was unsustainable; the disclosed taxable turnover for the relevant assessment year was accepted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether equal addition for probable omission was sustainable in the absence of a pattern of suppression in earlier or subsequent periods; (iii) Whether penalty for estimated stock difference was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The trading account method is a recognised mode of stock verification and may be adopted where other methods are not feasible. Although the method may not yield exact results, comparison of purchases, sales, book stock and physical stock can disclose stock suppression. The dealer had accepted the stock defect, did not satisfactorily explain the substantial variation, and had not challenged the tax levy on the suppressed turnover before the High Court.

Conclusion: The stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether equal addition for probable omission was sustainable in the absence of a pattern of suppression in earlier or subsequent periods.

Analysis: Equal addition cannot rest on guesswork alone and requires supporting material and reasons. Here, the failure to maintain purchase accounts and the prescribed Form-H stock register, coupled with a physical stock value nearly five times the book-stock value and absence of a satisfactory explanation, provided material establishing deliberate suppression. The Tribunal was justified in reversing the first appellate authority's deletion of the equal addition.

Conclusion: The equal addition for probable omission was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for estimated stock difference was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty requires recorded satisfaction that escaped turnover resulted from wilful non-disclosure. The omissions in maintaining purchase records and Form-H, the significant stock variation, and the lack of any supporting explanation established wilful suppression. The assessment order contained adequate reasons to impose penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty for wilful suppression of turnover was sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The restoration of the equal addition and penalty was sustained because the material established deliberate suppression beyond a mere notional or unsupported estimate.

Ratio Decidendi: A trading account method may support best judgment assessment where other verification methods are impracticable, and equal addition and penalty are sustainable when material establishes wilful suppression rather than mere estimated variation.

Issues: Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to registration of the sale certificate free from the State tax encumbrance, and whether the attachment order and revenue entry created for sales tax dues could override the secured creditor's prior claim.

Analysis: The security interest of the secured creditor had been registered with CERSAI long before the State attachment, while the State charge was neither shown to be registered nor supported by compliance with the procedural requirements governing attachment and proclamation under the revenue recovery framework. The amended Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 did not assist the State, as an identical contention had already been rejected, and the law remained that a duly registered secured creditor's statutory priority under the SARFAESI regime prevails over State revenue claims, including tax dues.

Conclusion: The auction purchaser's claim was upheld. The attachment order and encumbrance were liable to be quashed, and registration of the sale certificate was directed without insisting on the State's no-objection.

Issues: Whether Section 10(2) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 operates retrospectively so as to authorise levy of interest for periods prior to its commencement.

Analysis: The Court noted that Section 10(2) came into force only on 01.04.2009, while the demand related to an earlier assessment year. It accepted the assessee's contention that the provision could not be applied to an earlier period. The Court relied on the earlier decision which had held that interest under Section 10(2) could not be demanded for a period prior to its commencement, and treated that view as having attained finality.

Conclusion: Section 10(2) was held not to operate retrospectively. The demand of interest for the prior period was unsustainable, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed since the impugned demand could not be sustained in view of the settled position on the commencement and operation of Section 10(2).

Ratio Decidendi: A provision creating liability to interest cannot be applied to periods anterior to its commencement unless retrospective operation is clearly provided for by the statute.

Issues: Whether recovery and coercive proceedings, including assessment, show-cause and attachment notices, issued against a company that had ceased to exist upon amalgamation were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The initial demand notices and the consequent proceedings were issued against the transferor company after it had ceased to exist pursuant to amalgamation. A notice or recovery action issued to a non-existent entity is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The relief was therefore confined to the recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of notices issued to the non-existent company, without adjudicating the merits of the underlying tax liability.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders, show-cause notice and attachment notices, to the extent they pursued recovery against the non-existent amalgamated company, were set aside and the challenge succeeded.

Issues: Whether penalty proceedings under Section 45A, which prescribes no express limitation period, were initiated within a reasonable time.

Analysis: Although Section 45A contains no prescribed period for initiation of penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be commenced within a reasonable period. The analogous five-year periods governing assessment and escaped-turnover assessment under Sections 17 and 19 provide the applicable benchmark. A show cause notice issued beyond that period is time barred notwithstanding prior communications or alleged non-cooperation by the assessee. The notice concerning assessment year 2011-12 was required to be initiated before 31.03.2017 but was issued on 27.12.2017.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was barred by limitation and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether rental receipts attributed to furniture, fixtures and common amenities in the leased premises amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods liable to tax under the APGST Act and APVAT Act. (ii) Whether the lease arrangements were merely service contracts, incapable of being treated as deemed sales.

Issue (i): Whether rental receipts attributed to furniture, fixtures and common amenities in the leased premises amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods liable to tax under the APGST Act and APVAT Act.

Analysis: Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution and the relevant taxing provisions apply only where there is a transfer of the right to use goods for consideration. The lease deeds showed that the landlords retained effective possession and control, several facilities were common to multiple occupants, and the items were not identified or delivered as exclusive goods for any particular tenant. On the facts, the essential ingredients of a taxable transfer of the right to use goods were not established.

Conclusion: The levy of tax on the rental component referable to furniture, fixtures and common amenities was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the lease arrangements were merely service contracts, incapable of being treated as deemed sales.

Analysis: The agreements were construed as a whole and reflected a composite arrangement for provision of facilities and amenities incidental to renting of immovable property. The contractual terms did not show consensus ad idem for an independent transfer of specific goods, nor did they vest exclusive user rights in the tenants. The arrangement was therefore not divisible into a separate taxable sale of goods component on the basis adopted by the revenue authorities.

Conclusion: The transactions were held to arise from a contract of service and not from a deemed sale.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demands and affirming orders were set aside, and the batch of writ petitions and the tax revision case were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax on the transfer of the right to use goods arises only when the transferee obtains identifiable goods with effective, exclusive control and legal right to use them; where the arrangement is for common amenities or incidental facilities retained under the landlord's control, it is not a deemed sale.

Issues: Whether tax and penalty based on the deemed intra-State sale of goods for failure to obtain a transit pass may be sustained when the carrier produces material showing that the goods were transported outside Tamil Nadu.

Analysis: Section 70(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 creates a rebuttable presumption that goods were sold within the State where the transit-pass requirement is not complied with. Its proviso permits the owner or person in charge to rebut that presumption by proving that the goods moved outside the State. The material produced prima facie indicated such outward movement after release of the goods and required verification. Although penalty for the separate offence of not obtaining a transit pass may remain available, tax and penalty assessed on the value of the goods cannot be imposed solely on the deemed-sale basis once the legal fiction is rebutted.

Conclusion: The deemed-sale assessment requires fresh consideration after verification of the evidence of movement of goods outside the State, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming fiction of intra-State sale based on non-compliance with transit-pass requirements is rebuttable where the carrier establishes that the goods were transported outside the State.

Issues: Whether the challenge to notices initiating rectification under Rule 83 could be entertained at the show-cause stage, particularly when the petitioner raised an objection to the Assessing Authority's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute as to whether telephone rental charges involved transfer of the right to use goods required factual adjudication in the statutory proceedings. Although writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised against a show-cause notice, the jurisdictional objection concerning invocation of Rule 83 was required to be considered by the Assessing Authority before proceeding on merits. The petitioner was left free to submit further material and raise all available grounds, including jurisdiction.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained at the notice stage; the petitioner was directed to participate in the rectification proceedings and the Assessing Authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the priority conferred on a secured creditor under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act prevails over a statutory first charge created under the State sales tax enactments when the tax attachment orders predate CERSAI registration but postdate the mortgage; (ii) Whether a provision declared to be prospective can still operate retroactively on pending or antecedent transactions, and whether CERSAI registration could affect the prior attachment orders; (iii) Whether the statutory first charge under the State recovery framework extends to dues recoverable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the priority conferred on a secured creditor under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act prevails over a statutory first charge created under the State sales tax enactments when the tax attachment orders predate CERSAI registration but postdate the mortgage.

Analysis: Section 26E confers priority in payment after registration of security interest, but it does not create a statutory first charge. The State enactments, particularly Section 16C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, create a first charge dehors the non obstante clause. On the principles governing conflicting priority clauses and statutory first charge, a mere priority provision cannot override a validly created first charge. The subsequent CERSAI registration therefore did not displace the State's first charge in respect of the tax dues already crystallised and attached under the State laws.

Conclusion: The priority under Section 26E does not prevail over the statutory first charge created under the State sales tax enactments; this issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether a provision declared to be prospective can still operate retroactively on pending or antecedent transactions, and whether CERSAI registration could affect the prior attachment orders.

Analysis: Prospectivity, retrospectivity and retroactivity are distinct concepts. A provision declared prospective is not automatically excluded from all retroactive operation unless the higher court has expressly negatived such application. The amended Chapter IVA of the SARFAESI Act takes into account antecedent facts, but its operation cannot defeat vested statutory first charge where that charge had already crystallised under the State enactments. In the present facts, the tax claims and attachment orders had already arisen well before the CERSAI registration.

Conclusion: Section 26E cannot be applied so as to defeat the prior statutory first charge in the present case; this issue is answered against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory first charge under the State recovery framework extends to dues recoverable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Though the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 does not itself create an express first charge, Section 9(2) incorporates the recovery machinery and powers under the State sales tax laws for collection and enforcement. In the absence of any exclusion, the statutory incidents attached to the State recovery provisions apply to CST dues as well. The State authorities may therefore enforce the first charge while recovering CST arrears.

Conclusion: The statutory first charge is available for recovery of CST dues also; this issue is answered in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The secured creditor's claim to priority under Section 26E did not displace the State's statutory first charge, the amendment could not be used to unsettle the prior tax attachment rights in the facts of this case, and the State could proceed for recovery of APGST, APVAT and CST dues.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory first charge validly created dehors the non obstante clause prevails over a later statutory provision that confers only priority in payment, and such priority cannot be used to defeat pre-existing tax recovery rights.

Outcome: The writ petitions were disposed of by declining interference and granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the VAT Act.

Issues: Whether sales of blended coffee marketed under the dealer's own trademark at a point other than the first sale are taxable under Section 5AA.

Analysis: Section 5AA deems a trademark or patent holder selling non-declared goods at a point other than the first sale to be the first seller and permits deduction of tax collected at the preceding point on the same goods. Blended coffee, produced from taxed coffee seeds and chicory and marketed under the dealer's own brand, attracted this deeming levy. Registration of the trademark was immaterial.

Conclusion: Sales of blended coffee under the dealer's own trademark were taxable under Section 5AA; the issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether Soya Flour was covered by the exemption granted under Notification No. 48 dated 23.04.2002 and whether the revisional orders levying tax and refusing exemption called for interference.

Analysis: The notification exempted atta and besan derived from cereals and pulses, excluding imported and registered branded varieties. On the facts recorded, Soya Flour was held not to be flour of cereals or pulses, soyabean being treated as an oilseed and not as a cereal or pulse. The revisional authority therefore treated the exemption as inapplicable and upheld levy of Central Sales Tax on the turnover in question. The challenge to the revisional action and the consequential orders did not persuade the Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The exemption was held inapplicable to Soya Flour and the impugned orders were sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the tax demand based on the revisional orders remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed strictly, and the commodity must fall squarely within the exempted description before tax relief can be granted.

Issues: Whether the Revenue could reopen and challenge the assessee's method of computing inadmissible input tax credit on furnace oil when the same methodology had already been consistently upheld in the assessee's own cases for earlier and subsequent assessment years.

Analysis: The disputed input tax credit computation had been accepted in prior and later assessment years and the Tribunal had already upheld the assessee's methodology under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. In the present case, the Revenue sought to take a contrary stand only for one year, after a long lapse of time, without disturbing the earlier final decisions on the same issue. The principle that the Revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions on identical facts applied with full force, and the challenge was treated as an impermissible instance of pick and choose.

Conclusion: The Revenue was bound by consistency and was not entitled to interfere with the assessee's accepted method of computation. The revision petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order in favour of the assessee was sustained and the Revenue's revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical tax computation method has been consistently accepted in the assessee's own cases and attained finality, the Revenue cannot selectively challenge the same methodology for a different year on the same facts.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned tax order was validly issued and served on the petitioner; (ii) Whether the tax demand included turnover from works executed in Punjab without verification of the relevant facts or determination of Telangana's jurisdiction to levy tax thereon.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned tax order was validly issued and served on the petitioner.

Analysis: The departmental record showed that the order was uploaded on the portal before the date on which it was signed. This discrepancy, together with the absence of proper issuance, dispatch, and service upon the petitioner, established that the order had been issued without due service.

Conclusion: The impugned order was invalid for want of due issuance and service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the tax demand included turnover from works executed in Punjab without verification of the relevant facts or determination of Telangana's jurisdiction to levy tax thereon.

Analysis: The turnover relating to contracts executed in Punjab and the alleged payment of Punjab VAT had not been factually verified. The jurisdiction of Telangana authorities to tax transactions executed in Punjab had also not been addressed.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained without verification of the Punjab turnover and determination of Telangana's jurisdiction to levy tax on those transactions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax determination lacked valid service and failed to address material jurisdictional and factual questions; the authorities may proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax determination issued without due service and without examining material facts bearing on the taxing authority's territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for want of the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, cheating by personation and criminal conspiracy. (ii) Whether the criminal prosecution was a collateral sequel to the fiscal dispute under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and therefore an abuse of process.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for want of the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, cheating by personation and criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The materials disclosed no recovery of the original transit declarations alleged to have been forged, no forensic comparison of disputed signatures, and no handwriting expert opinion. Liability for forgery attaches to the maker of the false document, and the record did not identify either petitioner as the maker. The allegations also did not disclose deception at the inception of the commercial transaction, dishonest inducement, personation, or foundational facts showing a criminal conspiracy.

Conclusion: The essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, and continuation of the prosecution was unwarranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal prosecution was a collateral sequel to the fiscal dispute under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and therefore an abuse of process.

Analysis: The chronology showed that the dispute arose after the fiscal proceedings, including notice, penalty, and resort to statutory remedies before the taxation forum. The Court treated the criminal case as arising from the same fiscal controversy rather than from an independent criminal design. In such circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to prevent misuse of the criminal process.

Conclusion: The prosecution was held to be collateral to the fiscal dispute and an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court interfered and terminated the criminal case, holding that the prosecution lacked a legally sustainable foundation and could not be permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigation does not disclose the primary materials necessary to establish forgery, cheating or conspiracy, and the criminal case substantially emerges from an antecedent fiscal dispute, the inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Issues: Whether the impugned show cause notice issued in 2024 for the assessment year 2009-2010 was liable to be quashed as time-barred and incapable of reviving a stale proceeding under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an audit conducted in 2009 and an earlier show cause notice issued in 2014 for escaped assessment. The assessment for 2009-2010 had been completed on 15.03.2011, and the Court held that the respondent was required to complete proceedings under section 27 within six years, which would have expired on 14.03.2017. The later events relating to connected assessment years, appeals, and the pending challenge to those orders did not extend or revive the statutory limitation. The Court also held that the obligation to maintain records under section 64(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with rule 6(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 could not justify continuation of an otherwise time-barred proceeding.

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice was held to be barred by limitation and liable to be quashed, and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal to hear and decide the second appeal on merits, including the jurisdictional objection to reassessment under Section 10 of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, after disposal of the pending NCLAT proceedings.

Analysis: The pending NCLAT proceedings, which had prompted the Tribunal to defer the second appeal, stood disposed of. In the circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, to take up the second appeal for hearing and disposal on merits, including the jurisdictional question raised by the petitioner. The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the second appeal or on the contentions of either side, and that the question raised by the petitioner would remain open for adjudication in the appropriate proceeding.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to hear and decide the second appeal expeditiously, including the jurisdictional issue, without any adjudication by the Court on the merits of the dispute.