2026 (8) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT") in Service Tax Appeal No.30095 of 2022. 3. Vide the impugned order, the CESTAT observed that there exist two conflicting views rendered by two different High Courts on the interpretation of Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "the CGST Act"). One is the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, namely, the High Court for the State of Telangana in Granu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s ought to be followed. 6. It was further contended that, even assuming a Larger Bench was required to be constituted, such a course could only be adopted by the High Court and not by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, being subordinate to the jurisdictional High Court, has no authority to examine whether the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court should prevail over that of another High Court, particularly when the former is binding upon it. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, particularly paragraph 31 thereof, wherein it has been categorically held that the judgments of a High Court are bind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two different High Courts on the same issue, coupled with the fact that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is presently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where an interim order is also operating. 10.1 Nevertheless, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have constituted a Larger Bench for the purpose of examining the correctness or applicability of the judgment rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. Such an exercise is impermissible in law, as the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court continues to bind all Tribunals and authorities functioning within its territorial jurisdiction unless it is stayed, reversed or overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10.2 At the same tim....