TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No. 945 of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the Revision Petitions filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow (for short "the Commissioner") against a common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi (for short "the Tribunal") in appeals preferred by the Commissioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") in respect of the assessment year 1988-89. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : The Dealer, incorporated as a private limited company, is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium 'properzi' redraw rods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the U.P. Act"), as inserted by Notification No. ST-II-6075/X-6(9)/83 dated 30th September, 1983. The said Entry reads as follows : "(24) All kinds of ore, metals, scraps and alloys including sheets and circles used in the manufacture of brass wares, except those included in any other entry or any other notification issued under the Act." 4. Similarly, for the assessment year 1988-89, with which we are concerned in this appeal, the Assessing Authority taxed the 'properzi' rods at the rate of 2.2% vide order dated 19th August, 1992. However, subsequently proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act were initiated against the Dealer on the ground that assessment in respect of the said ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of 2%. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue took the matter in second appeal to the Tribunal which, vide order dated 27th March, 1998, dismissed both the appeals. 7. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue filed Revision Petitions before the High Court. As stated above, by the impugned order, the High Court has allowed both the Revision Petitions. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. (supra) wherein, according to the High Court, it had been held that aluminium rolled products and extrusions did not fall in the category of metal and were liable to be taxed as unclassified item, the High Court has come to the conclusion that 'properzi' rods manufactured by the Dealer are, in fact, wire bars....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to the learned counsel, the assessment made in the case of HINDALCO on remand has attained finality. It is, thus, pleaded that since the item, viz. 'properzi' redraw rod manufactured by the Dealer and HINDALCO are similar, the Revenue cannot treat two dealers differently for the purpose of levying sales tax under the Regional Act as well as the Central Act. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the decision of the High Court and submitted that 'properzi' redraw rods are manufactured from aluminium ingots and billets; being commercially different commodities, the same cannot be considered as primary metal and, therefore, these have been correctly taxed in the category of unclassified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tem No. 6 (as it then existed) in the Schedule attached with the U.P. Act which is materially similar to Entry 24, this Court has observed that expression 'Metal' has been generally employed to refer to the metal in its primary sense, i.e. the metal in the form in which it is marketable as a primary commodity, it is unnecessary for us to delve deep into the issue. The only question for our consideration is whether the said decision conclusively holds that 'properzi' redraw rods are not 'metal' in the primary form as such constituting new commercial commodity as held by the High Court. Having carefully gone through the judgment, particularly the observations in para 7 thereof, we are convinced that in so far as 'properzi' redraw rods are con....