Res judicata barred reopening of a dispute on the same facts, even though the legal question had remained open.

A dispute finally decided on the same facts and material could not be reopened in a second round merely because the question of law had earlier been left open. The lower authorities had already recorded findings of fact in favour of the respondent-assessee, and the Tribunal correctly applied res judicata to prevent re-agitation of the matter. The Supreme Court note states that no interference was warranted with the Tribunal's order and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could reopen the dispute in a second round of litigation on the same facts and material, and whether the Tribunal was right in applying the principle of res judicata.

Analysis: The dispute had already been decided in the first round in favour of the respondent-assessee, though the question of law had been left open. The subsequent proceedings arose on the same factual matrix and material, and the lower authorities had recorded findings of fact in favour of the respondent. In these circumstances, the attempt to reagitate the matter was held impermissible, and the Tribunal's application of res judicata was found to be correct.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not reopen the matter in the second round, and the finding that res judicata applied was affirmed in favour of the respondent-assessee.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the Tribunal's order, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute finally decided on the same facts and material cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings merely because the question of law was earlier left open.

---