TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eding assessment year stood already heard by this Tribunal on 20.03.2019. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, issues in the said appeal were similar to what has been raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment year, except for one issue which was on a claim for additional depreciation at the rate of 10%. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee considering the immense pressure exerted by the Department for recovery had moved a Writ Petition before Jurisdictional High Court. Submission was that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide its judgment dated 11.03.2019 in WMP No.7788 of 2019 in WP.6845 of 2019 had ordered interim stay of the recovery subject to a condition that assessee paid 20% of C61,11,213/- being the dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court stated, many years ago, in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. [1991] (55) ELT 433 as follows : "...The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities...." (p. 436) It was further observed by the Supreme Court that if the order of an appellate authority is the subjectmatter of further appeal, that cannot furnish any ground for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. The Supreme Court went on to say that if this healthy rule is not followed, the result will not only be undue harassment to assessees but chaos in the administration of tax laws. 13. In CIT v.Ralson Industri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e would be a reduction in the liability is evident from the decision given by the Tribunal in its order dated 29-7-2005 in respect of the assessment years 19990-2000 to 2001-02. All that the Tribunal did in that order was to follow the tenets of judicial discipline as laid down by the Supreme Court and on that basis grant relief to the petitioner. We are of the view that if the Tribunal can follow its earlier order passed by the Special Bench, in keeping with the high standards of judicial discipline, then there is absolutely no reason why a subordinate authority such as the CIT(A) should feel hesitant to follow the order of the Special Bench and give relief to the petitioner. 16. What has apparently come in the way of the CIT(A) is the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s since it would unnecessarily deprive an assessee of good money due to it from the revenue. Looked at in this larger perspective, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief prayed for since it has, quite clearly, paid more than the amount that is due if the order passed by the Special Bench is implemented. 17. In arriving at this conclusion, we have also taken note of the fact that the order of the Special Bench has not been stayed and is still operative and has in fact been given effect to by the Tribunal itself in its order dated29-7-2005. Consequently, we issue a writ of mandamus and stay the requirement of the petitioner having to deposit Rs. 4.86 crores till its appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 is h....