TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal, while acting under Section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, could refuse to give effect to the High Court's earlier order and pass a contrary order for the same assessment year, and whether the earlier direction exempting pile durries manufactured on handloom or pitloom from sales tax under Entry 18 of the notification dated 31 January 1985 had to be implemented.
Analysis: The Tribunal was required only to carry out the High Court's remand directions and had no authority to re-examine the correctness of the High Court's conclusion. Under the principle of judicial discipline, a subordinate tribunal must follow the decision of the superior court and cannot ignore or circumvent it on the ground that a different view is possible on the notifications. The Court held that the Tribunal's contrary order amounted to a flagrant disregard of the High Court's binding direction. The Court also noted the constitutional principle of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and observed that such disobedience could border on contempt, though no contempt rule was issued in view of the lenient approach adopted.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable and had to be set aside, and the earlier High Court order exempting the pile durries from sales tax was directed to be given effect to.
TaxTMI 
