Judicial discipline in tribunal benches requires adherence to larger-bench majority views, with disagreement sent back for reconsideration.

A smaller Tribunal bench is bound by the majority view of a larger bench under judicial discipline, and the minority view of that larger bench has no precedential force for the smaller bench. If the smaller bench cannot accept the larger bench view because of a legal aspect it considers unaddressed, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. Applying that principle, the HC set aside the Tribunal's orders and remitted the revisions for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a smaller bench of the Tribunal was bound to follow the majority view of a larger bench and, on disagreement, whether the matter ought to have been referred to a larger bench instead of adopting the minority view.

Analysis: In matters of judicial discipline, a smaller bench must follow the applicable view of a larger bench. The minority view of the larger bench has no precedential force for a smaller bench. If the smaller bench is unable to accept the larger bench view on account of any legal aspect not considered, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the revisions were remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in having the adverse orders displaced, but the dispute was sent back for fresh decision by the Tribunal under the correct bench discipline.

Ratio Decidendi: A smaller bench is bound by the majority view of a larger bench and, if it disagrees, must seek reconsideration by a larger bench rather than follow the minority view.

---