Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner, Trade Tax,U.P. Lucknow v. India Casting Balkeshwar Road, Agra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 944 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 2323 (2 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 944 of 1997.

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...Applicant.


S/S India Casting, Agra. ... Opposite party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 13.01.1997 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

. Dealer/Opp. Party (hereinafter referred to as ''the Dealer') was engaged in the business of C. I. Castings manufactured by process of castings in rough and unfinished  form C. I. Castings was manufactured in a shape which was required for Diesel Engine, Generator Set   To prove thatsuch C. I. Castings were sold in a rough and unfinished form, the dealer filed Certificates of purchasers.  It was claimed to be a Cast Iron castings in its primary form and in a rough unfinished form, covered under the entry of "Cast Iron" of Section 14 (iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act and liable to tax @ 4%.  The Assessing Authority has not accepted the claim of applicant and treated such Cast Iron Casting as an unclassified items.  First Appeal filed by the dealer was rejected.  Tribunal allowed the second appeal and accepted the plea of dealer.  Tribunal on the basis of Certificates filed by the purchaser has accepted the claim of dealer that the Cast Iron Castings were sold in rough and un-machined form.  Tribunal also found that in the earlier years, claim of dealer had been accepted.  Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Vasantham Foundry Vs. Union of India and others reported 1995 STC (99) page 87, Tribunal treated such rough and unfinished C.I. Casting as a Cast Iron and held liable to tax @ 4% being covered under Section 14 (iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri R. R. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the First Appellate Authority found that the goods were sold in the pieces and not in weight and Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Act was granted for Cast Iron Castings, in which there was no mention of rough and unfinished Cast Iron Castings. He submitted that the Tribunal has illegally accepted the claim of the dealer merely on the basis of Certificates of purchaser that the Cast Iron Castings were sold in a rough and un-machined form.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  Dealer had filed Certificates of purchaser before the Assessing Authority, in which, purchaser had certified that they had purchased Cast Iron Castings in a rough and un-machined form.  Such Certificates have not been found to be incorrect and forged.  In the previous years also it has been accepted that such Cast Iron Castings were sold in unfinished form.  Merely because Cast Iron Castings have been sold in pieces and not in weight, the claim of dealer can not be disputed that it was sold in a rough and unfinished form.  In the case of Vasantham Foundry Vs. Union of India and others (supra), Apex Court held  that Cast Iron  Castings in its basic or rough form in a Cast Iron.  Apex Court held as follows:-

"Therefore, in our view ''cast iron casting' in its basic or rough form must be held to be ''cast iron'.  But, if thereafter any machining or polishing or any other process is done to the rough cast iron casting to produce things like pipes, manhole covers or bands, there cannot be regarded as ''cast iron casting' in its primary or rough form, but products made out of cast iron castings, such products cannot be regarded as ''cast iron' and cannot be treated as ''declared goods' under Section 14 (iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act.  This view is not in conflict with the view taken in the case of Bengal Iron Corporation (supra), but it is in consonance with the decision in that case."

"It has been argued that the word ''cast iron' must be understood in the way the trade understands it.  This understanding has been recognized and implemented by the various circulars issued by various State Governments and the Central Government from time to time in a consistent view.  This meaning should not be discarded without very strong reasons.  In the instant case, if the well understood meaning is discarded and the new meaning is adopted, 8,000 foundries all over the country will suffer irreparable loss or damage."

For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the present revision.

In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.