TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eel wires, it purchases raw material namely wire rods against Form 3-B on payment of tax at the rate of two per cent to its selling dealer. In all these assessment years, regular assessment orders were framed on 8.1.2003, 16.2.2004, 17.3.2005 and 30.3.2006 respectively. The turnover of interstate sales of steel wire was exempted therein on the ground that it was manufactured out of tax paid steel rod. The Assessing Officer approached the Additional Commissioner Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad for grant of permission to reassess the turnover of steel wire in respect of interstate sales on the ground that the said turnover has escaped the assessment. The petitioner does not fulfil the conditions as provided by the notification dated 13th of September, 1990 for grant of exemption on the said turnover. Consequently, show cause notices were issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade-I to the petitioner. The said Officer after taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 19.1.2007 has sanctioned initiation of reassessment proceedings. Challenging the said sanction order passed under Section 21(2) of the Act, the above writ petitions have been filed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) 93 STC 187 (S.C.) supports the contention of the petitioner. Besides above, reliance was placed by him upon an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition wherein the effect and operation of the Commissioner's circular on the issue was stayed, as an interim measure. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the attention of the Assessing Authority was not drawn towards the fact that in the subsequent decision by the Apex Court it was laid down in no uncertain terms that the decision given in Telangana Steel Industries (supra), is not a good law. The decision given by the Apex Court is a binding precedent and since the assessment order was framed in ignorance of the subsequent binding precedent of the Apex Court, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Considered the respective submissions of counsel for the parties. Before proceeding further, it is desirable to have a look into the assessment order in question. The Court was taken through the assessment order relating to the assessment year 2000-2001 and was given to understand that similar kind of assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce:- (i) .................. (ii) .................. (iii) .................. (iv) iron and steel, that is to say,- (i) pig iron, sponge iron and cast iron including ingot the moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap ; (ii) steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all qualities, shapes and sizes) ; (iii) skelp bars, tin bars, sheet bars, hoe-bars and sleeper bars ; (iv) steel bars (rounds, rods, squares, flats, octagons and hexagons, plain and ribbed or twisted, in coil form as well as straight lengths) ; (v) steel structurals (angles, joists, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections) ; (vi) sheets, hoops, strips and skelp both black and galvanised, hot and cold rolled, plain and corrugated, in all qualities, in straight lengths and in coil form, as rolled and in rivetted condition ; (vii) plates both plain and chequered in all qualities ; (viii) discs, rings, forgings and steel castings ; (ix) tool, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories ; (x) steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had, in no uncertain terms, had come to the conclusion that 'raw hides and skins' and 'dressed hides and skins' were not one and the same commodity. The relevant para 16 of the report is reproduced below:- 16. "From the aforesaid observations it clearly follows that the Constitution Bench had, in no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins were not one and the same commodity. Therefore the first contention raised in the present case by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted notwithstanding the reliance placed by them on the aforesaid decision in the case of Telangana Steel Industries case. It may here be noted that in none of these decisions was the attention of the Learned Judges drawn to the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench in Abdul Shakoor's case." It follows that the Apex Court has clearly laid down in the case of TVL K.A.K. Anwar and Company (supra) that the decision rendered by it in the case of Telangana Steel Industries (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent for the simple reason that the said decision was delivered without taking into account the earlier binding precedent of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Without deciding whether both the goods was one commercial commodities or not and after referring to the decision of State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra Etc., (1976) 3 S.C.R. 168. 1976 U.P.T.C. 282 (S.C.): and Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1993 U.P.T.C. 1247 (S.C.) : 1994 Supp (1) S.C.C. 413, this Court held that as both the rods and wires form part of one sub item viz., (iv) (xv), they could not be taken as separate taxable commodity and wire rod which had been purchased by the dealers had already been subjected to sales tax, then wires which were drawn from the said rods could not be taxed again. In arriving at this conclusion, it was observed that when the sub-item spoke of wires "rolled, drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated" it showed that even if they were separate commercial commodities, the Legislature nevertheless did not want wires to be taken as a commodity different from rods for the purpose of permitting imposition of sales tax once again on wires, despite rods having been subjected to sales tax." In reply, Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel submits that the attention of the Division Bench w....