Binding precedent controls tax assessments when a subordinate authority cannot disregard the jurisdictional High Court's view on freight charges.

A subordinate taxing authority must follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and cannot refuse to apply it because another High Court has taken a different view on similar facts. Disregarding binding precedent violates judicial hierarchy and is beyond the assessing authority's jurisdiction. On that basis, the assessment orders could not be sustained to the extent of freight charges, and the writ petitions were allowed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority could refuse to follow a binding decision of the High Court and sustain the assessment orders to the extent of freight charges.

Analysis: A subordinate taxing authority is bound by the of the High Court having jurisdiction over it and cannot prefer a contrary view taken by another High Court. Refusal to carry out the binding decision of the superior court is contrary to the basic principle of judicial hierarchy and amounts to a denial of justice. The assessing authority, therefore, had no jurisdiction to disregard the decision of this Court merely because another High Court had distinguished it on its own facts.

Conclusion: The assessment orders could not be sustained to the extent of freight charges, and the writ petitions were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessments were set aside to the extent challenged, reaffirming that subordinate authorities must adhere to binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority is legally bound to follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and cannot decline to apply it on the basis of a contrary view taken by another court.

---