Principle of consistency bars selective challenge to accepted input tax credit computation on identical facts.

The Revenue could not selectively challenge the assessee's computation of inadmissible input tax credit on furnace oil when the same method had already been consistently accepted and upheld in the assessee's own earlier and later years under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Applying the principle of consistency, the court treated the attempted one-year departure as impermissible pick-and-choose litigation on identical facts. The assessee's accepted methodology was protected, the Tribunal's order was sustained, and the Revenue's revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could reopen and challenge the assessee's method of computing inadmissible input tax credit on furnace oil when the same methodology had already been consistently upheld in the assessee's own cases for earlier and subsequent assessment years.

Analysis: The disputed input tax credit computation had been accepted in prior and later assessment years and the Tribunal had already upheld the assessee's methodology under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. In the present case, the Revenue sought to take a contrary stand only for one year, after a long lapse of time, without disturbing the earlier final decisions on the same issue. The principle that the Revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions on identical facts applied with full force, and the challenge was treated as an impermissible instance of pick and choose.

Conclusion: The Revenue was bound by consistency and was not entitled to interfere with the assessee's accepted method of computation. The revision petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order in favour of the assessee was sustained and the Revenue's revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical tax computation method has been consistently accepted in the assessee's own cases and attained finality, the Revenue cannot selectively challenge the same methodology for a different year on the same facts.

---