INDIAN CERAMIC HOUSE Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions the following question has been referred to us for decision in view of the conflict in two decisions of this court, namely, Messrs Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 666; A.I.R. 1957 All. 475) and Steel Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ([1970] 26 S.T.C 133; 1969 A.L.J. 399).

(2.) MESSRS Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 666; A.I.R. 1957 All. 475), is a Full Bench decision, wherein Mootham, C.J., observed as below :

(3.) THE Full Bench decision had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench and for this reason, the question was not then referred to a larger Bench. As the question has been referred to us, constituting a Bench of three Judges, the question naturally arises whether we can depart from the expression of opinion in the earlier Full Bench case. As observed in Atma Ram and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (A.I.R. 1959 S.c. 519), a bettor course would be to constitute a larger Bench where a Full Bench of three Judges is inclined to take a view contrary to that of another Full Bench of equal strength. This rule is invariably applied to cases where matters in issue requiring decision of the court have been decided by one Full Bench and another Full Bench is inclined to take a contrary view. In such cases the matter must be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration, but this rule cannot be applied to such expression of opinion which falls in the category of obiter dictum, not binding even on a single judge of the court. With regard to obiter dictum it has often been observed that it is not binding even on the subordinate courts, though the expression of opinion must be given due respect depending upon the court which made the observations and also depending upon whether the opinion was expressed casually or on consideration of all the aspects arising in the case.