Binding precedent remains operative despite reference to larger Bench; subordinate authorities must follow it until expressly overruled.

A prior High Court decision continues to bind sales tax authorities, the Tribunal and other subordinate fora until it is expressly overruled by a larger Bench. A mere reference of that decision for reconsideration does not suspend its precedential force or justify refusal to hear an appeal on that basis. On that principle, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal because the earlier ruling had been referred for reconsideration, and the assessee could not be denied registration of the appeal or a decision on merits without insistence on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decision of the High Court remains binding on sales tax authorities and the Tribunal until it is overruled by a larger Bench, and whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the decision had been referred for reconsideration.

Analysis: A prior decision of the High Court does not cease to operate as binding law merely because its correctness has been referred to a larger Bench. Until it is overruled, the earlier pronouncement continues to govern the field and must be followed by subordinate authorities and the Tribunal. A mere reference for consideration does not suspend the binding force of the existing decision or justify refusal to entertain the appeal on that basis.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the earlier decision had been referred to a larger Bench, and the assessee was entitled to registration of the appeal without insistence on the 20 per cent deposit.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to register and decide the assessee's appeal on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision of the High Court remains binding on subordinate authorities until expressly overruled by a larger Bench, and a reference for reconsideration does not dilute its precedential force.

---