https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77371 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. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77371 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77371