ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners-assessee for setting aside the impugned assessment order dated December 28, 2004 (annexure I to the writ petition) and the impugned notice of demand dated February 17, 2004 (annexure J to the writ petition) issued by the Revenue, Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Unit A, Guwahati, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby and whereunder, the respondent-Revenue assessed taxes on aluminium plain sheet at eight percent as unclassified item instead of four percent tax as already deposited by the petitioners-assessee treating the same to be covered by entry 45(b) of the Second Schedule and also directed the petitioners-assessee to pay the amount so demanded by demand notice dated February 7, 2004. Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. L. Gope, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dobey, learned standing counsel, Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel, while urging for the relief sought for, placed reliance on a judgment of this court passed in Steel Stores v. Commissioner of Taxes reported in [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati) and contended that the instant writ petition is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this court. Dr. Saraf has specifically referred to paras 28 and 29 of the aforesaid judgment to bring home his contention. Paras 28 and 29 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow (page 257 in 34 VST): 28. The withdrawal of aluminium sheets from entry 10 in Schedule IV and the assimilation of aluminium in entry 45(b) in Schedule II by the notification dated January 27, 2000 proclaims a conscious steps of the lawmakers to strike a distinction between aluminium plain sheets and aluminium corrugated sheets. It cannot be gainsaid that aluminium corrugated sheets and aluminium plain sheets though varying in species are traceable to the same genus aluminium. Noticeably no specific entry was sanctioned for aluminium plain sheets by the notification dated January 27, 2000, though aluminium was added to entry 45(b). As the aluminium plain sheets were exigible at eight percent prior to January 27, 2000, the same could have been retained with aluminium corrugated sheets in entry 10 of Schedule TV carrying the same rate of tax by the notification dated January 27, 2000. As the aluminium plain sheets were exigible at eight percent prior to January 27, 2000, the same could have been retained with aluminium corrugated sheets in entry 10 of Schedule TV carrying the same rate of tax by the notification dated January 27, 2000. Further if aluminium sheets was construed to be located in the residuary Schedule III for all intents and purposes, there was no necessity of incorporating it in clear terms along with aluminium corrugated sheets in entry 10 of Schedule IV by the notification dated February 15, 2002. Deficiency in legislation in non-allocation of an exact entry to the aluminium plain sheets resulting in loss of revenue as the plausible reason for the notification dated February 15, 2002 cannot thus readily be inferred. Selecting a specie of a commodity for taxation at a particular rate at some point of time would not necessarily lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was suggestive of the denudation of all the characteristic attributes of its primary state. 29. Having regard to the successive notification prescribing the situs of aluminium plain sheets and in absence of any overwhelming evidence that the same on the basis of the inputs available can be decisively held to be a finished product emanating from the primary metal aluminium, this court is of the view that for the intervening period February 1, 2000 to February 18, 2002 it ought to be regarded as included in entry 45(b) of Schedule II and taxable at four percent. The finding of the learned revisional authority to the contrary is unsustainable in law and on facts and is thus adjudged as such. 3. Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel, Revenue appearing for the respondents has also conceded the submissions advanced by Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, as Mr. Dubey himself was the arguing counsel on behalf of the Revenue in the aforesaid case, Steel Stores [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati). 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment passed by this court in Steel Stores [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati), this court is of the view that the instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of this court passed in Steel Stores [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati). The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this court in Steel Stores [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati). 5. Consequently, following the decision rendered by this court in Steel Stores [2010] 34 VST 243 (Gauhati); [2010] 5 GLR 802 (Gauhati), the impugned assessment order dated December 28, 2003 (annexure I to the writ petition) and the impugned demand notice dated February 17, 2003 (annexure J to the writ petition) issued by the Revenue, Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Unit A, Guwahati, respondent No. 2, are hereby set aside and quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.