TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the same assessment year? Held that- authorities cannot be permitted to take different stand in case of dealer in respect of similar item for same assessment year. - Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2010 - D.K. Jain and T.S. Thakur, JJ. S/Shri Vishwajit Singh, Ritesh Aggarwal, Siddharth Sengar and Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Aarohi Bhalla, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Vandana Mihra, Sanjay Visen and G.V. Rao, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the final judgment and order dated 12th August, 2005 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No. 945 of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d finally a 9.5 mm diameter redraw rod comes out, which is then wound on the drum of a mechanical coil. The stand of the Dealer is that 'properzi' rods of the size of 9.5 mm have no use in the market inasmuch as except for being used as raw material in the manufacture of wires of different sizes, it cannot be used as such for any other purpose. 3. For the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88, the 'properzi' rods manufactured by the Dealer were classified by the Assessing Authorities to be a metal/primary metal and were assessed at the rate of 2% plus surcharge at 10% of the said rate in terms of Entry 24 of the Schedule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the U.P. Act"), as inserted by Notification No. ST-II-6075 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved, the Dealer preferred separate appeals against the assessments under the Regional Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr., the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Varanasi vide his order dated 11th February, 1993, allowed both the appeals. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found that 'properzi' rods manufactured by the Dealer were not in the final shape of finished goods and were the basic raw material for the manufacture of aluminium wires and, therefore, being a primary metal, would attract tax at the rate of 2%. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue took the matter in second appeal to the Tribunal which, vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne the matter after making further enquiry. It is asserted that the said decision does not conclude the issue against the Dealer as pleaded on behalf of the Revenue. Learned counsel also points out that pursuant to the remand by the High Court in the case of HINDALCO, the Assessing Officer examined the entire issue afresh; by summoning the representatives of other manufacturers to understand the manufacturing process as also the commercial value, and then came to the conclusion that 'properzi' redraw rod is like an ingot - a form of primary metal and, therefore, falls in the category of metal and alloy, covered under Entry 24. According to the learned counsel, the assessment made in the case of HINDALCO on remand has attained finality. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in respect of assessment year 1988-89 was the assessment in the case of HINDALCO, in which case, after the remand by the High Court, assessment for that year has attained finality, can the Revenue be permitted to take a different view in the case of the Dealer from that taken in the case of HINDALCO in respect of the same assessment year? 11. In so far as the first question is concerned, we are of the opinion that in the light of the decision of this Court in Hindustan Aluminium Company Ltd. (supra) wherein, while examining the question whether aluminium rolled products and extrusions could be described as 'Metal' under Item No. 6 (as it then existed) in the Schedule attached with the U.P. Act which is materially similar to Entry 24, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejudicial to the interest of either of the parties, particularly when HINDALCO is not before us. 12. Now, coming to the second issue, it is trite that in view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, a wider discretion is given to the Revenue for the purpose of taxation and ordinarily different interpretations of a particular tariff entry by different authorities as such cannot be assailed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, in our opinion, two different interpretations of a particular entry by the same authority on same set of facts, cannot be immunised from the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. It would be a case of operating law unequally, attracting Article 14 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
