2003 (12) TMI 674 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Civil Applications for review of the Full Bench judgment dated 13-3-2003.
2. Jurisdiction and power of review by the Full Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Advisory and consultative jurisdiction of the Full Bench.
4. Impact of the Full Bench's decision on subsequent Division Bench judgments and finality of litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Civil Applications for Review of the Full Bench Judgment:
Mr. Deshpande, representing non-applicant No. 1, argued that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by law or statute. He contended that no provision or statute grants the Full Bench the power to review its own decisions, making the Miscellaneous Civil Applications for review not maintainable. The court upheld this preliminary objection, stating that the power of review must be conferred by law and is not inherently available to the Full Bench.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of Review by the Full Bench under Article 226:
Mr. Bhangde, representing the applicants, argued that the Full Bench exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, thereby inherently possessing the power of review. He contended that Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, only provides the procedure for referring matters to the Full Bench and does not define the source of its jurisdiction. The court, however, concluded that the Full Bench's jurisdiction was not under Article 226 but was advisory and consultative, thus lacking the inherent power of review.

3. Advisory and Consultative Jurisdiction of the Full Bench:
The court examined whether the Full Bench exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 while answering the questions referred to it. It noted that Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules allows a Single Judge or Division Bench to refer matters to a Larger Bench for resolving legal inconsistencies. The Full Bench's role was to provide an advisory opinion on the legal questions referred to it, not to exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226. The court emphasized that the Full Bench's jurisdiction was distinct, separate, and advisory, not akin to the jurisdiction under Article 226.

4. Impact of the Full Bench's Decision on Subsequent Division Bench Judgments and Finality of Litigation:
The court highlighted that after the Full Bench's judgment on 13-3-2003, the Division Benches applied the law laid down by the Full Bench to finally dispose of the respective writ petitions under Article 226. The Division Benches' decisions rendered finality to the litigation. The court noted that allowing the review applications would invalidate the Division Benches' decisions and actions taken pursuant to those directions. It emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and dismissed the Miscellaneous Civil Applications as not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Civil Applications for review of the Full Bench judgment dated 13-3-2003. It concluded that the Full Bench exercised advisory and consultative jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction under Article 226, and thus lacked the inherent power of review. The Division Benches' decisions, based on the Full Bench's judgment, were final and could not be reopened through the review applications.