Inconsistent tax classification of identical goods cannot stand when it offends Article 14 and the Revenue changes position midstream.

Aluminium properzi redraw rods were discussed in the context of classification under Entry 24 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, with the Court noting that the earlier decision on related aluminium products had not conclusively excluded this commodity from that entry. The Court also held that the Revenue could not sustain a reassessment on one view for the assessee while accepting a contrary classification for identical goods in the connected HINDALCO matter on the same facts. Such inconsistent treatment by the same authority offended Article 14, and the reassessment based on the earlier contrary view was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether aluminium properzi redraw rods are classifiable as metal under Entry 24 of the Schedule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the Revenue could reopen and sustain the assessee's assessment for the same year on a view different from that accepted in the connected HINDALCO matter on identical goods.

Issue (i): Whether aluminium properzi redraw rods are classifiable as metal under Entry 24 of the Schedule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether properzi redraw rods were metal in its primary, marketable form or a new commercial commodity liable to be treated as unclassified goods. The Court treated the earlier decision on aluminium rolled products and extrusions as not conclusively deciding the position of properzi redraw rods, and noted that the issue had been left open for further enquiry. It also noted that, on remand in the connected matter, the assessing authority had treated the same product as primary metal under Entry 24.

Conclusion: Properzi redraw rods were not finally held to be outside Entry 24, and the Revenue could not rely on the earlier view to classify them as unclassified goods in the present case.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could reopen and sustain the assessee's assessment for the same year on a view different from that accepted in the connected HINDALCO matter on identical goods.

Analysis: The Court held that although different tax authorities may sometimes adopt different interpretations, the same authority cannot apply two inconsistent interpretations to the same kind of goods on the same set of facts without offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the reopening of the assessee's assessment was founded on the earlier view taken in HINDALCO, and the later assessment in that connected matter had attained finality on remand, the foundation for the reassessment of the assessee disappeared. The Revenue could not be permitted to take a different stand in the assessee's case for the same assessment year.

Conclusion: The reassessment based on a contrary view was unsustainable and violated the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded because the reassessment could not be maintained once the Revenue accepted the contrary classification in the connected matter for the same assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue applies one classification to identical goods in one assessee's case and a different classification to the same goods in another case on the same facts, the inconsistent treatment is impermissible and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

---