Declared goods classification controls reassessment: elastic rail clips treated as forgings, making reopening on the same issue unsustainable.

Elastic rail clips were treated as forgings and therefore as declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, following the classification approach accepted in earlier authority. On that basis, the reassessment notices issued under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 lacked a sustainable foundation because they were premised on the same rejected view that the goods were not declared goods. The reopening of assessment was accordingly held unjustified and quashed, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether elastic rail clips manufactured by the petitioner were forgings and therefore goods covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the notices and authorisation issued for reassessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were justified.

Issue (i): Whether elastic rail clips manufactured by the petitioner were forgings and therefore goods covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on whether the product was a forged iron and steel item or an unclassified article. The earlier decision in Sikka Heat Treatment Centre was relied upon, and the Supreme Court in Vee Kay Industries was treated as having approved that view and recognised elastic rail clips as forgings. Once that classification was accepted, the item fell within the declared goods category.

Conclusion: The elastic rail clips were forgings and were covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices and authorisation issued for reassessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were justified.

Analysis: The reassessment was based on the premise that the goods were not declared goods and that the earlier tax treatment and set-off under section 4BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were incorrect. Since the classification of the goods as forgings had already been affirmed, there was no sustainable basis to reopen the assessment on the same issue after several years.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the authorisation for reopening were unjustified and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned reassessment proceedings could not be sustained because the goods were held to be declared forgings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of goods has already been judicially accepted as falling within declared goods, reassessment cannot be founded merely on a contrary view about the same settled classification.

---