<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (2) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271950</link>
    <description>Where the governing statute permits the Appellate Tribunal to consist of one or more members, a single remaining qualified member may continue to function after vacancies arise, because the scheme favours continuity rather than cessation of jurisdiction. The absence of a separate notification constituting benches does not, by itself, invalidate the tribunal&#039;s functioning or the orders made by that member. Even if the member&#039;s authority were treated as defective, the de facto doctrine would protect the judicial acts from collateral challenge. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed, and the orders were not void for lack of authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271950</link>
      <description>Where the governing statute permits the Appellate Tribunal to consist of one or more members, a single remaining qualified member may continue to function after vacancies arise, because the scheme favours continuity rather than cessation of jurisdiction. The absence of a separate notification constituting benches does not, by itself, invalidate the tribunal&#039;s functioning or the orders made by that member. Even if the member&#039;s authority were treated as defective, the de facto doctrine would protect the judicial acts from collateral challenge. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed, and the orders were not void for lack of authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>