JUDGMENT 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.
4. In another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sri Baradakanta Misra v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit - AIR 1972 SC 2466 has observed as follows :
"Under Article 227 it has jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It would be anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court and start proceedings in direct violation of it."
5. It is settled that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence over the Court and Tribunal. It was further held as follows :
"15-16. The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decisions of the High Court is circulated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is, therefore, comprehended by the principles underlying courts disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the per-view of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate the mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has repercussion on a individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and most disastrous impact. It is circulated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to suvert the rule of law and in engender harrassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law."
6. Relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court I hold that the Tribunal has flagrantly disobeyed the orders of this Court and have attempted to undermine the constitutional authority in respect of the High Court. However, taking a lenient view of this matter I do not issue a rule of contempt against the learned members and only warn the learned members that in future no such indiscipline or impropriety should be shown by them in Sr. Judicial matters. The Tribunal under Section 11(8) is to give effect to the orders of the High Court and not to challenge the same on whatsoever grounds. The only course left with the department is to go in appeal before the High Judicial body.
7. With these observation, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 18-10-1997 is hereby set aside and the order dated 20-10-1995 pased by this Court is to be given effect to exempting the pile durries manufactured on handloom or pitloom from sales tax under Entry No. 18 of the said notification dated 31-1-1985. The Tribunal is directed to pass an appropriate order within a period of three weeks from the date of service of this order. The Registrar, High Court, Allahabad is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chairman, Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow for information and circulation.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned under Section 11 (8) of the Act.