Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr
India Supreme Court
Writ Petition (C) No. 1072 of 2013
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Following the declaration of independence in 1948, the Indian government attempted to constitute a National Tax Court, a project rendered moot by the 12th Report Law Commission. In 1970, the government of India set up a Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee, which recommended the creation of a national tax court staffed with judges with special knowledge of tax laws. In 2003, the Union of India promulgated the National Tax Ordinance, which provided for the transfer of jurisdiction for all appeals regarding tax issues to the National Tax Tribunal. In 2004, the Indian government more formally promulgated the National Tax Tribunal Act (NTT Act). The Indian Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the NTT Act as part of a consolidated appeal. The appellants on appeal argued that the NTT Act violated the power of judicial review vested in the High Court by Forty-Second Amendment (Constitution Act, 1976). The appellants also challenged the specific provisions of the NTT Act, which established the National Tax Tribunal, which the appellants asserted was a quasi-judicial appellate tribunal. According to the appellants, the NTT Act vested the National Tax Tribunal with the authority to adjudicate appeals arising from orders passed by appellate tribunals. The appellants argued that the high courts retained jurisdiction of such appeals and that the high courts cannot be substituted by an extra-judicial body like the National Tax Tribunal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Khehar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.