Binding appellate orders must be followed in identical tax matters unless stayed, with any departure requiring a reasoned distinction.

Subordinate quasi-judicial authorities must give effect to binding appellate orders in an assessee's own case for earlier years when those orders have not been stayed or set aside. If later assessment proceedings involve identical transactions and facts, the authority cannot disregard the earlier relief merely because the department intends to challenge it or prefers a different view; any departure requires a reasoned factual distinction. On this footing, an assessment and demand based on the same issue could not be sustained, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and accounting for the earlier appellate orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority was bound to follow the appellate orders passed in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, and whether the impugned assessment and demand could be sustained when those orders had neither been stayed nor set aside.

Analysis: The dispute arose from identical transactions of sale of nickel-cobalt in the assessee's FTWZ operations across successive assessment years. The earlier appellate orders had granted relief on the same issue, and the record showed that those orders remained operative. The assessing authority, however, passed the impugned order without dealing with the assessee's specific reliance on those appellate orders. The controlling principle is that subordinate quasi-judicial authorities must follow binding appellate decisions in the absence of any stay or suspension, and cannot ignore such orders merely because the department proposes to challenge them or prefers a different view. Where the facts are identical, any departure must be supported by a reasoned distinction.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order and demand could not be sustained, and the matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and keeping in view the binding effect of the earlier appellate orders.

---