Rule of parity applies: materially similar facts warranted disposal in terms of the earlier order and the same relief.

Where the facts are materially similar to an earlier decided matter and no distinguishing circumstance is shown, the same relief should ordinarily follow. The Court applied the rule of parity, holding that like cases must be treated alike and that similarly situated litigants should not be denied the benefit of a prior disposal in the absence of relevant differences. The appeal was therefore disposed of in terms of the earlier order, extending consistent relief to the respondent's position.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, involving facts stated to be substantially similar to an earlier decided matter, should be disposed of in the same terms.

Analysis: The subject matter was treated as materially similar to an earlier appeal decided by the Court, and the Revenue was unable to distinguish the present case from that precedent. The Court applied the principle that like cases should be treated alike, and that similarly circumstanced litigants should not be denied the same relief in the absence of distinguishing features.

Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the earlier order, resulting in relief consistent with the respondent's position.

Final Conclusion: The decision applies the rule of parity and extends the benefit of the earlier coordinate-bench disposal to the present appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts are materially similar and no distinguishing circumstance is shown, the Court should treat like cases alike and extend the same relief.

---