S.L.Saraf, J. - (1.) It is a revision application against the order dated 18-10-1986 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh whereby the Tribunal has passed an order under Section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in pursuance to the order of remand dated 20th October, 1995 for the assessment year 1985-86. The High Court has directed the Tribunal to give effect to the said judgment holding that the pile durries manufactured on handloom or pitloom are exempt from sales tax under Entry 18 of the notification dated 31-1-1985. There was a specific direction on the authorities to dispose of the said appeal in the light of the findings and observations recorded in the said judgment. When the matter went back to the Tribunal to give effect to the judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal instead of giving effect to the said judgment sat on the High Court's order by passing an order contrary to the judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal took the stand that the pile durries was not covered under Item No. 18 of the said notification dated 7-9-1981 but it came under Item No. 13 of the notifications dated 7-9-1981. According to the Tribunal the matter was not brought to the notice of the High Court that the said notification dated 7th September, 1981 makes the cotton carpet including the pile durries taxable at the rate of 6%. There was another notification of the same date which specifically laid down the carpet of all kinds including namdas but excluding the cotton durries are taxable item at the rate of 10%. According to the Tribunal pile durries is taxable under Item No. 13 of the Notification No. 5785, dated 7th September, 1981 and not excluded from Item No. 18 of the Notification No. 5784, dated 7th September, 1981.
(2.) The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the said order or had acted contrary to the judicial discipline in challenging the order and the judgment of the High Court relating to the same assessment year between the same parties. Particularly in view of the fact the Counsel for the department was appearing before the High Court and was entitled to raise all issues before the High Court. The points in issue was specifically mentioned in paragraph 8 of the revision. Serial No. 13 of the notification of 1981 was very much in dispute and the High Court must have been presumed-to have taken note of.
(3.) It appears that the Tribunal had exceeded its limits and has in fact committed contempt of this Court. The Tribunal should have kept itself within the judicial descipline and should not have concerned themselves with the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached by the High Court. The Tribunal under Section 11(8) of the Act was only authorised to give effect of the High Court order and not to sit on judgment of the High Court's order. This was an attempt by the Tribunal to find fault with the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited - AIR 1992 SC 711 had stated the principle of judicial discipline required that the order of the Higher judicial authority should be followed by the subordinate authority.;