Res judicata and estoppel in tax assessments cannot bar a dealer from challenging later-year entries where the same stand was consistently maintained.

In tax proceedings, each assessment year is independent and an earlier Tribunal ruling for different years does not create res judicata for later assessments. The dealer was therefore entitled to challenge whether the Shah account entries represented sales by constituents outside the State. Estoppel by conduct also did not apply because the dealer had consistently maintained the same position in earlier proceedings and no unfair advantage from inconsistent conduct was shown. The Tribunal was accordingly wrong to hold that the dealer was barred from raising the issue, and the reference was answered in favour of the dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dealer was precluded by res judicata or estoppel by conduct from contending that the entries in the Shah account were not sales made by the constituents outside the State to the dealer.

Analysis: In tax matters, each assessment year is independent and a decision for one year does not operate as res judicata for later years. The earlier Tribunal decision concerning different assessment years therefore could not bar the dealer from challenging the later assessments. The plea of estoppel by conduct also failed because the dealer had consistently taken the same stand in the earlier proceedings, and no advantage had been shown to have been obtained by any inconsistent position. The principle that a Tribunal should be slow to depart from an earlier view did not support a legal bar against the dealer raising the contention.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the dealer was precluded from agitating the question.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the dealer and the Tribunal's view on res judicata and estoppel was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxation, an assessment for one year does not bind later years by res judicata, and estoppel by conduct cannot arise where the party consistently maintained the same stand without taking unfair advantage.

---