2019 (8) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee were liable to tax @ 4% under notification entry no. 4 Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) (as amended by Notification no. KA.NI. 2-67/XI dated 10.1.2008). 2. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for revenue and; Sri Atul Gupta and Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for opposite party-assessee. 3. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the metal brake shoe casting manufactured by the dealer is in fact metal casting and covered by notification no. 67 dated 1.1.2008 and not unclassified item liable to tax @....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Vasantham Foundry Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 289. Also, it has been stated, in the other assessment years of the same assessee, the same goods i.e. the brake shoe castings had been taxed @ 4%. Those orders having attained finality, the rule of consistency would apply to the facts of the present case and no different conclusion could ever be drawn. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Radasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the aluminium castings manufactured and sold by the assessee have been identified even by the revenue authorities as metal castings. ....