Final appellate rulings on identical tax issues must be followed; authorities cannot force repeated litigation on the same question.

Where a competent appellate forum has finally decided the same GST issue between the parties, departmental authorities must give effect to that ruling in later identical import clearances and representations. The article concerns re-import of repaired aircraft parts and IGST exemption under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus.; it states that the earlier CESTAT orders had not been stayed or set aside, so the respondents could not insist on repetitive litigation or adopt a different view through separate assessing officers. The operative effect was that the authorities were required to act consistently with the existing appellate decisions and dispose of the petitioner's representations in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were bound to apply the CESTAT's earlier orders holding that IGST was not leviable on re-imported repaired goods and to decide the petitioner's representations and subsequent clearances accordingly.

Analysis: The dispute concerned re-import of repaired aircraft parts and the petitioner's claim to exemption from IGST under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The Court noted that the CESTAT had already decided the same legal question in favour of the petitioner in two final orders and that those orders had not been stayed or overturned. It held that once the issue had been adjudicated between the parties, the respondents could not insist on repeated litigation for each fresh Bill of Entry or adopt a different interpretation through different assessing officers. The Court also relied on the National Litigation Policy and the principle that government authorities must act as responsible litigants and follow binding decisions in later cases involving similar facts and the same legal issue.

Conclusion: The respondents were required to give due effect to the CESTAT's earlier decisions and decide the petitioner's representations in accordance with law, with due deference to those orders. The petitioner's claim was thus accepted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the respondents were directed to act consistently with the existing appellate rulings and dispose of the petitioner's representations expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same tax issue has been conclusively decided by a competent appellate forum and the decision has attained finality, the departmental authorities must follow it in later identical matters and cannot compel repeated litigation on the same question.

---