Reasoned consistency in tax assessment enhanced petition failed where similar facts had been treated differently without explanation

The Madras High Court held that the Tribunal could not partly allow the Revenue's enhancement petition for 1990-91 on similar bogus-bill purchases without giving reasons for departing from its own earlier order for 1989-90, where enhancement had been dismissed on comparable facts. As the material issue was substantially the same across both years, the absence of a reasoned distinction made the differing treatment unsustainable. The Tribunal's order was therefore set aside to the extent it partly allowed enhancement, and the assessee succeeded on that issue, while the remaining parts of the Tribunal's order were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in partly allowing the Revenue's enhancement petition for the assessment year 1990-91 without assigning reasons, when in the assessee's earlier assessment year on similar facts the enhancement petition had been dismissed.

Analysis: The revision concerned the assessment year 1990-91 and arose from revised assessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act based on purchases treated as supported by bogus bills. The Tribunal had, for the earlier year 1989-90, dismissed the Revenue's enhancement petition, but for 1990-91 it partly allowed enhancement in respect of the same type of transactions without giving any reason for the different treatment. In the absence of any reasoned distinction, and since the issue was materially similar to the one already decided for the earlier year, the same approach was held to be applicable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order partly allowing the enhancement petition was set aside and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was interfered with only to the extent of the partly allowed enhancement petition, leaving the remaining parts of the Tribunal's order undisturbed.

---