Statutory appeal remedy and binding Tribunal orders limit writ interference and control subordinate tax authority action.

When an effective statutory appeal is already pending, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised, because the assessee has chosen the appellate route and the dispute should run its course there. The Tribunal's order also remained binding on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner until it was set aside, since a pending tax case by the department did not suspend its operation. The lower authority was therefore required to apply the Tribunal's legal view to the facts before it. The result was refusal of writ interference and affirmation of the Tribunal's continuing binding force on the subordinate appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised when the assessee had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's view so long as it remained unshaken.

Issue (i): whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised when the assessee had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute related to a turnover issue for which an appeal was already pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The availability and pendency of the statutory remedy made it inappropriate to interfere under Article 226 at that stage, particularly when the assessee had already chosen that remedy.

Conclusion: Writ relief was declined on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's view so long as it remained unshaken.

Analysis: The Tribunal occupied a superior position in the hierarchy of authorities under the Act. Its orders continued to operate and were binding on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner until set aside. The filing of a tax case by the department did not suspend or stay the Tribunal's order, and the lower authority was required to apply the Tribunal's legal view to the facts before it.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was held to be binding on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner until set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and affirmed the binding force of the Tribunal's order on the subordinate appellate authority, leaving the statutory appeal to run its course.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy is pending, writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted, and an order of a superior tax appellate authority remains binding on a subordinate authority until it is set aside.

---