MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, raises the following substantial question of law:

(2.) THEREAFTER , the appeal was fixed for rehearing before the Tribunal of a Bench comprising of Shri Yudhavir Singh, Ms. Amarjeet Sachdeva and Shri Subhash Kaushik. After hearing the arguments again on September 22, 2011, Shri Subhash Kaushik wrote and signed the judgment on December 19, 2011 (annexure A8), but two other Members did not sign the same. Unfortunately, Ms. Amarjeet Sachdeva died on January 19, 2012. Thereafter, the appeal was assigned to a new Bench of the Tribunal in which Shri Yudhavir Singh was not a Member. The new Bench dismissed the appeal on May 31, 2012, the order out of which the present appeal arises. The appellant has also attached the copy of the orders dated April 4, 2011; December 19, 2011 and May 31, 2012.

(3.) ON the other hand, Ms. Talwar has argued that unless the order is communicated, the order passed by the majority Members of the Tribunal cannot be said to be a legally binding order, as such order was never put in the course of transmission. She relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika : AIR 1966 SC 1313. It is also contended that the appellant is estopped to challenge the subsequent orders inasmuch as the appellant had the opportunity to dispute the hearing of the appeal by subsequent Bench, which was never raised.