Rohit Kumar

TRIBUNALS
In generic term, Tribunal is a body which adjudicates upon a matter. Tribunals adjudicate on administrative laws
or the matter which requires expertise knowledge.. For e.g. The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in
1985 owes its origin to Article 323-A of constitution which allows Parliament to set up a body to adjudicate
complaints and disputes respect to conditions and recruitment of service of person appointed to public service
and posts of Union and States. It has members drawn from both judicial and administrative streams for the
expertise in respective sphere.
The objective of Tribunals is to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to litigants. In relation to matters, these
Tribunals exercise the jurisdiction and powers of a Civil Court. It has the power to punish for contempt.
Securities Appellate Tribunal
-

It is set under Section 15 k of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1997.
It hears and disposes appeals orders passed by SEBI, thus having its jurisdiction on cases related to
Securities and Exchange markets.
It has the powers vested as under a Civil Court
It can summon, enforce the attendance of a person and examin
e him under oath.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

-

It disposes of disputes and appeals regarding all direct tax related matters.
The Investigation Commission has the power to award cost in appeals or grant refunds depending on
case.
It has the power of remand but it should not be exercised as a routine matter.
It has the power to review and rectify its order.
It has the power to restore an ex-parte order

NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL (NTT)

September 2014 judgements of a constitutional bench struck down Section 5,6,7,8 and 13 of Act as
unconstitutional. Since these sections forms the whole edifice of National Tax Tribunal, the whole act stands
unconstitutional. The bench stated that NTTs power impinges on the power of judicial review vested in High
Courts.
NTT adjudicated on the appeals arising from orders passed by Appellate Tribunals. The Appellate Tribunals
were constituted under Income Tax Act, Customs Act 1962 and the Central Excise Tax, 1944. This judgement
would have bearing on all these Appellate Tribunals established.
-

Before introduction of NTT Act, an assessee or Commissioner could move to High Court under
Section 256 of Income Tax Act and to Supreme Court under Section 257 of Act to settle the question of
law. But after NTT act, even the question of law was settled by constituting a different bench. The
decision by NTT could not be questioned by any other civil courts. Now all such related matter under
the Income Act would go directly to the High Courts or Supreme Court. Similar was the case with
Customs Act and Central Excise Tax Act 1944.
This judgement would allow petitioners to question the powers of various Appellate Tribunals set up
under these acts or other Tribunals for that matter.
The question on the uniformity on the adjudication of tax laws was supposed to be settled with NTT.
But now that question would crop up again, that would be decided, individually by different High
Courts.

Rohit Kumar

Minerva Mills vs Union of India Case Summary

Facts:
-

The case was filed by a textile company Minerva Mills Ltd and some other creditors against Union of
India.
Central Government, under the provisions of Sick Undertakings Nationalisation Act, 1974, passed an
order to take over the management of Minerva Mills.
Committee appointed by the government mentioned that the company was working in a way
detrimental to public interest.
After taking over the management, the mill was nationalised under the relevant act.
It also challenged Section 4 and 55 of Constitution inserted as a part of 42 nd amendment as it was
related to the issue of Section b and c of Article 39 which describes the certain principles of State
policy.

Questions
-

The court discussed whether it was justified to take over the management under section 18 A of the
Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951
It also questioned the Parliaments power to amend the constitution. By way of amendment, Parliament
added Section 31C which gave it power to make laws which are inconsistent to Article 14 (Equality
before Law), Article 19 (Protection of certain rights of Freedom and Expression) and Article 31
(Compulsory acquisition of property)
The second challenge was mounted on Section 55 of Constitution (42 nd Amendment) which inserted
sub sections in Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend Constitution and Powers thereof) giving
Parliament unlimited power by way of addition, repeal and amendment of Constitution. It gave
Parliament overriding power over Judiciary by mentioning that no such amendment be questioned by
Court
The question before the Court was to decide whether these provisions destroy the basic features of
Constitution.
It also questioned if Directive Principles (Part III) can take precedence over Fundamental rights.

Decision:
-

By a majority of 4:1 Court ruled that Section 4 of the Constitution (42 nd amendment) is
unconstitutional as it is in violation of basic structure. While Section 55 was unanimously considered
unconstitutional
Chief Justice Y J Chandrachaud mentioned in his verdict that Parliament has the right to make
alterations as long as they are within the constitutional framework.
Majority held that limitation of amending power is the basic feature of constitution and could not be
used to remove that limitation.
The Court contended that if ordinary lawmaking goes beyond the ambit of judicial scrutiny, it will be
akin to taking away the powers of judiciary to held government accountable.
The bench emphasised the importance of both Directive Principles and Fundamental rights and
mentioned that to destroy the guarantees given by Part III in order purportedly to achieve the goals of
Part IV is plainly to subvert the Constitution by destroying its basic structure.