Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 703
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Abhishek Banerjee – Appellants
VERSUS
M/s. EMTA Coal Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 35962 of 2026)
Decided On : 12-06-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR
Lower judicial or quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to the law as settled by higher courts within their jurisdiction. Tribunals act correctly when relying on such settled legal positions, provided the precedent has not been set aside or overruled by the apex court.
Headnote:(A) Tax Law - Taxable service - Liability to pay - Tribunal's reliance on higher court precedent - Binding nature of higher court judgments - Tribunal cannot ignore higher court judgment until it is set aside or overruled by apex court - (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Appeal - Appellate jurisdiction - Scope - Interference - Order of tribunal being well-reasoned and based on existing higher court precedent, does not warrant interference - (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the decision of a tribunal, which held that certain activities did not constitute taxable services under existing laws. The appellant argued that the tribunal's reliance on a previously settled higher court judgment was erroneous.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the tribunal's decision was consistent with established legal principles. The tribunal's adherence to the law as defined by a higher court remained correct and within bounds, as such rulings remain binding precedent until set aside or overruled by the apex court.
Issues: Whether the tribunal erred in law by following a higher court's judgment that had not yet been set aside or overruled by the apex court.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial or quasi-judicial bodies must follow the law as settled by higher courts within their jurisdiction. A tribunal does not commit an error of law by relying on such precedents, as these continue to hold the field until they are specifically overturned.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. granting leave to appeal against cestat orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. high court rulings are binding on the tribunal (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. supreme court precedent warrants dismissal of appeal (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
1. Leave to file Civil Appeal is granted.
2. Appellant has challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”), New Delhi in favour of the respondent(s) on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously held the activities of Respondent No. 1 – Company, to be not amounting to taxable service, and therefore, the said respondent is not required to pay service tax.
3. Having gone through the judgment, we are of the considered view that it is a well-reasoned order, therefore, it does not warrant interference. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed basing the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata vs. Electrosteel Castings Limited , 2025 (393) E.L.T 36 (Cal.) therefore, if the law is not settled by this Court, similar parties would approach the authorities including CESTAT for seeking similar relief.
4. If the law has been settled by some decision of the High Court, it remains binding till it is set aside or overruled by the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal cannot ignore the judgment of the High Court. Till it is set aside or overruled, the same would hold the field and the Tribunal has not committed any error of law by relying upon judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
5. It is also to be noticed that the law has been settled by the Supreme Court also in Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 33259 of 2018 by order dated 05.10.2018 against an earlier order of the similar nature in the matter of Marmugao Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, 2017(48) STR 69.
6. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
