1982 (12) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal was without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the amount of tax involved in both the cases at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal was in excess of Rs. 5,000. Such a matter was cognisable by a Bench of the Tribunal consisting of two members. That was bacause of the provision of section 10(10)(a) of the Act. The legal position in this regard was laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Lal Chand [1983] 53 STC 257; 1982 STJ 215. In these circumstances, the disposal by the Tribunal, with a single member, of the application containing the prayer for condonation of delay and also the appeal was bad. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter remanded to it for reconsideration in accor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appeal. Where the amount involved is not above Rs. 5,000 then, under section 10(10)(a)(i), a single member can dispose of the appeal; whereas where the amount involved is more than Rs. 5,000, the appeal has to be disposed of by two members. Section 10(6) of the Act vests powers in the Tribunal to stay the recovery of any disputed amount of tax, fee or penalty or refund of any amount due under the order appealed against till the disposal of the appeal. Rule 69(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules framed under the Act provides that an application for stay under section 10(6) may be heard and disposed of by a single member irrespective of the amount involved. This rule and section 10(6) of the Act will not apply because here what the asse....