Binding precedent on pre-export tea sales prevented reopening and rejection; assessment was remanded for fresh consideration.

Where an identical issue had already been decided on the same factual and legal basis, the assessing authority could not sustain reopening or reject the exemption claim on the same ground. The Court followed its earlier view on pre-export tea sales routed through registered auctioneers, noting that export-related documents had been produced and the assessment had already been verified. It therefore held that the claim required reconsideration in accordance with law, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption on pre-export sales of tea routed through auctioneers and whether the impugned order rejecting the claim and reopening the assessment could be sustained.

Analysis: The dispute was covered by the earlier decision of the same Court on identical facts. The sale of tea through registered auctioneers, the production of export-related documents, and the verification already made by the assessing officer had been treated as sufficient in the earlier ruling to deny reopening on the ground of non-compliance with the Government Order. Following that binding view, the Court accepted that the petitioner's claim required reconsideration in accordance with law rather than rejection on the stated ground.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded; the impugned order was quashed and the assessment matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh assessment.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the exemption claim could not be rejected on the basis adopted in the impugned order and directed a fresh assessment on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee on the same factual and legal basis, the assessing authority cannot sustain reopening or rejection on the same ground and must proceed in accordance with that binding view.

---