The Meghalaya High Court on Monday stated that it would not be appropriate for courts and tribunals to say that they are 'inclined to concur' with Supreme Court judgments since the judgments by the top court are binding on all courts within the territory of India..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh stated that the expression “inclined to concur” seemed inappropriate and exceptionable, even though everyone may not be adept in the foreign language to identify the same. "No authority in this country has to condescend to concur with any judgment of the Supreme Court since it is binding on all authorities by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. If the dictum in a Supreme Court judgment is applicable to the facts of a case in the milieu of the law that is relevant for the purpose, it is binding; and, whether or not any authority or adjudicating forum may agree with such dictum, it has to be applied," the Court said..The High Court observations were part of a judgment in which it had held that rusk and bread cannot be equated for Value Added Tax exemptions. .Binding judgments cited cannot be ignored.Meghalaya High Court .The Bench also highlighted the role of tribunals, adjudicating authorities and courts below in weighing case laws and precedent cited during submissions.The petitioner in this case had said the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal did not refer to the applicability of the several Supreme Court cases he had cited."It is possible that with judgments being available online these days, little discretion is exercised in trying to place what is appropriate and refraining from relying on the judgments that are irrelevant in the context. However, when precedents are cited before it, it is the bounden duty of an adjudicating authority to consider the same and, if irrelevant, indicate briefly, say in a sentence, as to why they may be irrelevant. The judgments cited cannot be ignored, particularly if such judgments are binding on the relevant forum" the High Court judgment said.