Consistency in tax adjudication justifies transfer where identical service tax issues are pending before the same authority.

Where two proceedings raise the same tax issue, consistency in adjudication may justify having them heard by the same authority. The High Court noted that both show cause notices concerned service tax on discounts and incentives received from a car manufacturer, and it accepted the request to avoid inconsistent treatment merely because the other taxpayer was different. The proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice were therefore directed to continue before the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh, to ensure consistent adjudication on an identical issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice should be continued before the Principal Commissioner instead of the Deputy Commissioner in view of a similar adjudication pending on the same issue.

Analysis: The subject matter of both show cause notices was the same, namely the levy of service tax on discount and incentives received from the car manufacturer. The request for transfer was declined only because the other taxpayer before the Principal Commissioner was different, even though the issue involved was identical. In the interest of consistency in adjudication, the Court found merit in directing that the matter be heard by the same authority dealing with the similar case.

Conclusion: The proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice were directed to continue before the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting the requested transfer of adjudication to ensure consistent orders in matters involving the same issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two proceedings involve the same subject matter and identical tax issue, consistency in adjudication may justify directing that they be heard by the same authority.

---