Selective Revenue challenge barred when a common appellate order is implemented and refunded in one case but disputed in another

The Revenue cannot accept and implement a common appellate order in favour of one assessee, grant refund, and then challenge the same reasoning in relation to another assessee on the same issue without any distinguishing feature. Where the order on the common question has attained finality for one case, selective writ challenge by the Department is impermissible. The Court treated the earlier implementation and refund as inconsistent with a later attempt to dispute the same order, and rejected the Revenue's position that an appeal was still under contemplation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could maintain writ petitions challenging a common appellate order after implementing the same order in respect of one set of assessees and granting refund, and whether such selective challenge was impermissible.

Analysis: The assessees' contention was that once the Department had accepted and implemented the common order in favour of one assessee without appeal, it could not, on the same question and on the same reasoning, dispute the order in relation to another assessee. The Court accepted this submission, applying the settled principle that when an order on the same issue has attained finality, the Revenue cannot accept it in one case and challenge it in another without any distinguishing feature. The Department's subsequent assertion that it was still contemplating appeal was rejected in view of the earlier implementation and refund.

Conclusion: The challenge by the Revenue was impermissible, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---