A Supreme Court constitutional bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) RM Lodha, and justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, AK Sikri and Rohinton Nariman have declared the proposed National Tax Tribunal (NTT)unconstitutional, quashing sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of the Act, rendering the law practically useless.

Nariman held the entire act unconstitutional, on the basis of separation of powers and judicial superintendence.

[Download judgment]

The lead petition was brought by the Madras Bar Association and was clubbed with several other cases deciding on the legality of the NTT, that was established by a 2005 Act of Parliament, with the power to adjudicate appeals from various tax appellate tribunal orders, which was previously the domain of the high courts.

The majority held:

91 (i) The Parliament has the power to enact legislation, and to vest adjudicatory functions, earlier vested in the High Court, with an alternative court/tribunal. Exercise of such power by the Parliament would not per se violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution.

(ii)  Recognized constitutional conventions pertaining to the Westminster model, do not debar the legislating authority from enacting legislation to vest adjudicatory functions, earlier vested in a superior court, with an alternative court/tribunal. Exercise of such power by the Parliament would per se not violate any constitutional convention.

(iii)  The "basic structure" of the Constitution will stand violated, if while enacting legislation pertaining to transfer of judicial power, Parliament does not ensure, that the newly created court/tribunal, conforms with the salient characteristics and standards, of the court sought to be substituted.

(iv)  Constitutional conventions, pertaining to constitutions styled on the Westminster model, will also stand breached, if while enacting legislation, pertaining to transfer of judicial power, conventions and salient characteristics of the court sought to be replaced, are not incorporated in the court/tribunal sought to be created


(vi)  Examined on the touchstone of conclusions (iii) and (iv) above, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of the NTT Act (to the extent indicated hereinabove), are held to be unconstitutional. Since the aforesaid provisions, constitute the edifice of the NTT Act, and without these provisions the remaining provisions are rendered ineffective and inconsequential, the entire enactment is declared unconstitutional.

Nariman, while concurring that the NTT was unconstitutional, went further, and held in a separate judgment:

Chandra Kumar and R. Gandhi have allowed tribunalization at the original stage subject to certain safeguards. The boundary has finally been crossed in this case. I would, therefore, hold that the National Tax Tribunals Act is unconstitutional, being the ultimate encroachment on the exclusive domain of the superior Courts of Record in India.

Mint noted that the judgment could also affect the fate of other tribunals, such as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that is currently facing challenge.

Click to show 9 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
Like +6 Object -0 Ha Ha 25 Sep 14, 13:05  interesting
Take that, you Babus and Netas!

Now let's home in on CA's and CS's trying to sneak in legal work themselves, spewing over-smart reasons.

Nobody messes with lawyers and Judges!!
Reply Report to LI
Like +2 Object -0 Ha Ha 25 Sep 14, 16:03
Page: 214, Para 78:

"In our understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts."

"Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are concerned, we are constrained to hold that
allowing them to appear on behalf of a party before the NTT, would be unacceptable
in law."

Page 226, Para 91 (v):

"The prayer made in Writ Petition (C) No.621 of 2007 is declined. Company Secretaries are held ineligible, for representing a party to an appeal before the NTT".

Oh, Sooper!!
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 @ Kian 25 Sep 14, 14:09
Please upload the judgement when it becomes available? Thanks :)
Reply Report to LI
Like +1 Object -0 kianganz 25 Sep 14, 15:01
Yes, keeping a close eye on it, like a hawk.

Will share a link here and on Twitter as soon as we got it.

Will be an interesting judgment. Looks like Lodha, in typical CJI-about-to-retire fashion, is bashing out one landmark feather-ruffling judgment after another.

Maybe it's payback for the NJAC? ;)

What exciting times!

Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 25 Sep 14, 15:35
Just out:
Reply Report to LI
Like +1 Object -0 ChuppaRustam 25 Sep 14, 17:08
Good. The CA's CS's need to be shown that there is no alternative to being a lawyer if you wish to plead in court.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Lawman 25 Sep 14, 21:30
Is NTT a court?
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 ChuppaRustam 26 Sep 14, 17:26
Akin to one.. Alternative to the HC. Hence the challenge?
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 wannabr AOR 27 Sep 14, 19:11
@Lawman Is NTT a court? no a tribunal is not a court but has all the trappings of a court
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.