Page 130 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

88 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
judicating Authority or the first Appellant Authority should follow the binding
decisions and not make uncalled for comments.
27. The Supreme Court had not made any observation that the order of
the Tribunal had not been approved, but still the Principal Commissioner ob-
served that the decision of the Tribunal was put ‘in jeopardy’ by the Supreme
Court. The Principal Commissioner, in the present case, clearly crossed all limits
of judicial discipline and propriety.
28. It has been considered necessary to examine the aforesaid approach
of the Principal Commissioner as Orders of the Adjudicating Authorities or the
first Appellate Authority are coming before the Tribunal in which the binding
decisions of the Tribunal are being ignored and a contrary view is taken either
for the reason stated in the aforesaid Order of the Principal Commissioner or for
the reason that the Department ‘has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal’ as it
had filed an appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
29. In this connection it will be appropriate to refer to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. The Supreme Court no-
ticed that the order passed by the Assistant Collector not only ignored the order
of the Collector (Appeals) remanding the matter, but also distinguished the deci-
sion of the Tribunal by observing that the decision of the Tribunal had not been
agreed to by the Department as an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court.
The assessee filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court to challenge the said
order of the Assistant Collector. The High Court not only quashed the order
passed by the Assistant Collector but also directed the Department to allocate the
matter to a competent officer for passing a proper order. It is against this decision
of the Bombay High Court that the Union of India preferred an appeal before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed as follows :-
“The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the As-
sistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure
of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in
the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of
utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before
them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authori-
ties. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors
working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the
Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdic-
tion of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of
the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate
authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not “accepta-
ble” to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject-matter
of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has
been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed,
the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in admin-
istration of tax laws.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. The Principal Commissioner relied upon two Circulars of the Board
dated 12 November, 1999 and 3 September, 2009. These two Circulars have been
reproduced in earlier paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Order. These two Circulars also
could not have come to the aid of the Principal Commissioner in making such
strong comments.
31. The first Circular dated 12 November, 1999 was issued in connection
with the eligibility of Dowtherm Heat Transfer Medium for claiming the benefit
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  130