GARHWAL ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAJORITY view of a larger Bench of the Tribunal favours what the revisionist sought to contend in relation to assessment years 1999 -2000, 2000 -01 and 2001 -02. This view has not been accepted by the Tribunal comprising of lesser number of Members, who have accepted the minority view of the selfsame larger Bench and, accordingly, has rejected the contentions of the revisionist. Hence these three revisions. We think that in the matter of administration of justice, it is the bounden duty of a smaller Bench to follow the applicable judgment rendered by a larger Bench, i.e., the majority view and not to follow the minority view which has got no application. It is, however, well within the competence of a smaller Bench to take steps to have the matter referred to a larger Bench, if they are unable to accept the applicable views expressed by the larger Bench on the ground that the larger Bench has not considered a particular aspect of the law or a judgment of a superior authority. In the instant case, that having not been done, we set aside the judgments under revisions and remit back the matter to the Tribunal with a direction upon the Tribunal to re -consider the matter in accordance with law.

(2.) THE revisions are disposed of accordingly.