https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162073 Section 57(3) of the Haryana VAT Act is described as requiring a divided two-Member Tribunal to record the points of difference and have the matter heard by the Full Member Tribunal. The note treats this procedure as mandatory, applying the rule that when a statute prescribes a mode, it must be followed strictly; sending the matter to a third Member for an independent hearing is said to be inconsistent with the provision. It also states that waiver cannot cure a mandatory statutory defect, and that delay, laches, or availability of a reference remedy do not necessarily bar writ relief where the tribunal process is fundamentally irregular and prejudicial. en-us Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:43:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162073 Section 57(3) of the Haryana VAT Act is described as requiring a divided two-Member Tribunal to record the points of difference and have the matter heard by the Full Member Tribunal. The note treats this procedure as mandatory, applying the rule that when a statute prescribes a mode, it must be followed strictly; sending the matter to a third Member for an independent hearing is said to be inconsistent with the provision. It also states that waiver cannot cure a mandatory statutory defect, and that delay, laches, or availability of a reference remedy do not necessarily bar writ relief where the tribunal process is fundamentally irregular and prejudicial. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162073