Separate restaurant cannot inherit star-status tax rate, and reassessment fails without fresh material after final earlier findings.

A separate restaurant could not be subjected to the higher tax rate reserved for a star-rated lodging house because the two were distinct entities with separate registrations and assessments, and there was no proof that the restaurant itself held tourism accreditation. Reassessment on the same issue also failed because earlier appellate and tribunal decisions on identical facts had attained finality, no fresh tangible material was shown, and the authority could not reopen the matter by mechanically relying on an enforcement report or a concluded position. The writ petitions were allowed and the assessment orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's restaurant could be treated as part of the star-rated lodging house so as to attract the higher rate of tax on its sales of food and drinks; (ii) Whether the reassessment orders could be sustained when the same issue had already been negatived in earlier proceedings and no fresh material was shown for reopening the assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's restaurant could be treated as part of the star-rated lodging house so as to attract the higher rate of tax on its sales of food and drinks.

Analysis: The restaurant and the lodging house were found to be distinct entities, with separate registrations, ownership, municipal assessments, and tax assessments. The higher rate based on star category was held to depend upon proof that the restaurant itself was registered with or accredited by the tourism authority. In the absence of such proof, the mere fact that the lodging house had star status could not be extended to the restaurant.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee; the restaurant could not be subjected to the higher rate merely because the lodging house had star status.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment orders could be sustained when the same issue had already been negatived in earlier proceedings and no fresh material was shown for reopening the assessment.

Analysis: The earlier appellate and tribunal orders on identical facts had become final. The reassessment orders did not refer to those decisions and no fresh tangible material was disclosed to justify reopening on the same basis. The assessing authority was required to independently evaluate the material and could not mechanically rely on the enforcement report or repeat a concluded position without new grounds.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee; the reassessment orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the assessment orders were quashed, as the higher tax levy and the reopening of assessments were not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A higher tax classification based on star-status cannot be applied to a separate restaurant entity without proof of its own accreditation, and reassessment on an identical issue cannot be sustained in the absence of fresh material after the earlier decision has attained finality.

---