Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgement/order dated November 17, 2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Lucknow, for the assessment year 1997 -98.
(2.) HEARD Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned standing Counsel for the Department. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist -assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel rods (sariya). During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has purchased goods from the units which were enjoying the tax benefit under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, without paying any tax, The A.O. levied the tax at four per cent. The revisionist -assessee claimed that only two per cent tax will have to be charged from the assessee as in other cases only at two per cent tax was charged. Not only the first appellate authority but also the Tribunal uphold the order passed by the A.O. Not being satisfied, the assessee is before this Court.
(3.) WITH this background, Counsel for the revisionist submits that the assessee has purchased the raw material from the industries who were enjoying the tax benefit under Section 4A. He submits that the other manufacturers of iron and steel rods (Sariya) have purchased raw material from the industries who are not enjoying the tax benefit under Section 4A and paid the tax at two pet cent on raw material and also pay two per cent tax on finished goods manufactured by them. So, in the case of the assessee, the tax will have to be charged at two per cent on the finished products on the basis of equality.;