8. Hence, we find that we are faced with a case, where, on similar law and facts, Honourable Jurisdictional High Court has dismissed Revenue’s appeal on tax effect. Hence, the question arises can this Tribunal take a different view? In our humble opinion, in no circumstances whatsoever, Tribunal can be led to take a different view on the same facts and law on which the Honourable Jurisdictional High Court has already taken a view as only a superior or co-ordinate authority can overrule or choose not to follow a precedent. For this, we draw support from following treatise from Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition by PJ. Fitzgerald on p.26 under Chapter 5 “Precedent” as under:-
“Where in fact a precedent is disregarded, this may take two forms. The court to which it is cited may either overrule it, or merely refuse to follow it Overruling is an act of superior jurisdiction. A precedent overruled is definitely and formally deprived of all authority. It becomes null and void, like a repealed statute, and a new principle is authoritatively substituted for the old. A refusal to follow a precedent, on the other hand, is an act of co-ordinate, not of superior, jurisdiction. “
9. Further, we note that ITAT, Chennai being the inferior, Tribunal is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court of Madras under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Tribunal is, therefore, bound by a decision of the Honourable High Court of Madras. We further find that Honourable Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (2007; 295 HR 466 (SC) had reiterated that “Rule of precedent” is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law ‘Doctrine of Precedent’ has further been reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court m a recent decision in the case of ACJT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch SF (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2004. In this decision, vide order dated 15.9.2008, the Honourable Apex Court had held that even a decision of Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Court rendered subsequent to the Tribunal decision can render the said Tribunal decision liable of rectification of mistake apparent from record. In view of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal by the Revenue on account of tax effect, when on similar facts Honourable Jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s case on tax effect.