Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Trade Tax Revision Case Nos. 1055 and 1070 of 1998 filed by the respondent. The two revisions were filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short the Act) and the Central Trade Tax Act, 1956 (in short the Central Act).
(3.) Factual background in a nutshell is as follows : The appellant hereinafter also referred to as the Assessee was dealing with Aluminium powder. In the original assessment order passed under Section 7(3) of the Act and Section 9 of the Central Act, Aluminium Powder was treated as metal and accordingly held liable to tax at the rate of 2.2%. Assessing officer initiated proceedings under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that this Court had in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(1981) 3 SCC 578] considered the entry "All kinds of minerals, ores, metals and alloys including sheets and circles" and held that under this entry only the primary metal is covered. It was also held that sheets and circle of Aluminium would not be covered under the entry "Metal" Assessing officer accordingly rectified the assessment orders under Section 22 and levied tax treating the Aluminium powder as an unclassified item. The First appellate authority in the appeals filed by the assessee held that Section 22 of the Act had no application and the assessments were set aside. The present respondent filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi Bench (in short the Tribunal) which were also dismissed. In the revision petitions filed, as noted above, the High Court held that action under Section 22 of the Act is clearly sustainable. It referred to a decision of this Court in M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (1976) 4 SCC 257] and held that a decision of this Court can be a ground for rectification of error in terms of Section 22 of the Act. The High Court did not accept the stand of the appellant that Aluminium powder in the powder form remains Aluminium in its primary form and in any case this is a debatable issue and, therefore, Section 22 of the Act does not apply.;