Which High Court Order should a Tribunal Bench Follow?
SUPPOSE a Tribunal Bench at Mumbai is faced with the problem of deciding as to which High Court decision it has to follow. If there is a decision of the Bombay High Court, there is no problem (to a large extend), but what happens if there are two conflicting decisions of say Madras and Calcutta High Courts? Which decision should the Tribunal follow? What happens if the issue is before a Larger Bench of the Tribunal?
I had an interesting case some years ago. A CESTAT Larger Bench had given an order in favour of the assessees - and there were several assessees spread across several States in this case.
Revenue appealed to the Kerala High Court against some of the assessees in the LB case and the High Court allowed the appeal setting aside the Tribunal decision. Around the same time, the Revenue appealed in the AP High Court against another assessee covered in the same LB order. The AP High Court upheld the CESTAT Order and dismissed the Revenue appeal.
The same issue again reached the Tribunal for a different period. The tribunal bench in Bangalore had territorial jurisdiction for both AP and Kerala. It happened that on the same day an appeal each was listed from Kerala and AP on the issue. When the Kerala case was called, the Bench observed that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Kerala High Court judgement and so dismissed the party's appeal. Next came my case from Andhra Pradesh. I was armed with an order of the AP High Court in my favour in the same LB case and submitted that the Tribunal was bound by the AP High Court order in my case.
The Tribunal wondered if it could take two contradictory decisions (on the same day) in two identical cases because of two different orders from two High Courts. I submitted that as the Tribunal was working under the jurisdiction of three High Courts, it was bound by the decisions of each of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the assesses from the respective States. Tribunal agreed and ordered in my favour. Much Obliged!
I discussed this issue with a retired High Court judge who was of the opinion that the Tribunal sitting in Bangalore was under the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court and if there was no order of the Karnataka High Court and there were conflicting orders from other High Courts, the Tribunal should decide the case on merits and follow one of the High Courts and not both. Not much obliged!