9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification entry no. 4 Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) (as amended by Notification no. KA.NI. 2-67/XI dated 10.1.2008). 2. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for revenue and; Sri Atul Gupta and Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for opposite party-assessee. 3. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the metal brake shoe casting manufactured by the dealer is in fact metal casting and covered by notification no. 67 dated 1.1.2008 and not unclassified item liable to tax @ 12.5%?" 4. On facts, it is undisputed that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 289. Also, it has been stated, in the other assessment years of the same assessee, the same goods i.e. the brake shoe castings had been taxed @ 4%. Those orders having attained finality, the rule of consistency would apply to the facts of the present case and no different conclusion could ever be drawn. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Radasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the aluminium castings manufactured and sold by the assessee have been identified even by the revenue authorities as metal castings. It is an admitted case between the parties that those items ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods had been dealt with, as covered under the taxing entry "all metal castings". The rule of consistency would commend that in view of same question permeating through assessment years, having been decided, in favour of the assessee and it has been allowed to attain finality, that decision ought to be applied in other cases as well. That being the dictum in the case of M/s Radasoami Satsang (supra). The ratio of that decision contained in paragraph no. 16 of the report is relevant to note, which reads as below: "16. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
