ORDER Ravi Malimath , J.—Both these petitions are filed by the very same assessee being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal/Bangalore, and hence are taken up for final disposal. For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner had declared a gross turnover (GTO) of Rs.1,28,94,887 and for the assessment year 1996-97, a sum of Rs.1,31,85,519.25 was declared as GTO. The assessing authority has levied tax and allowed set-off of tax paid on purchase of raw materials and thereby, demanded tax. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the petitioner preferred two appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), who confirmed the levy of tax and dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, wherein, by the common order dated April 18, 2007, the Tribunal held that the goods manufactured and sold by the assessee do not fall under entry 2(a)(vi) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") but, they fall under entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed. 2. Sri Indra Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the findings recorded by the lower authorities are improper and liable to be set aside. He contends that the commodities being dealt with by the petitioner-assessee fall under entry 2(a)(vi) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, inasmuch as the commodities such, as cold rolled strips in coil form are purchased by the assessee from dealers and are subjected to the process of bending and corrugation. Therefore, entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act referring to steel structurals, including angles, joists, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections, etc., cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 93 STC 187(SC). 3. Heard counsel. 4. Entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : Sl. No. Description of the goods Points of levy Period for which applicable Rate of tax 2 Iron and steel, that is to say-- (a), (i) to (iv)... 3. Heard counsel. 4. Entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : Sl. No. Description of the goods Points of levy Period for which applicable Rate of tax 2 Iron and steel, that is to say-- (a), (i) to (iv)... (v) Steel structurals (angles, joists, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections); Entry 2(a)(vi) reads as follows : Sl. No. Description of the goods Points of levy Period for which applicable Rate of tax 2. Iron and steel, that is to say— (a). (i) to (v)... (vi) Sheets, hoops, strips and skelp, both black and galvanised, hot and cold rolled, plain and corrugated, in all qualities, in straight lengths and in coil form, as rolled and in rivetted condition; 6. Based on the material available the authorities came to the conclusion that entry 2(a)(v) is applicable to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee is dealing with steel structures, namely, angles, joists, channels, etc. In order to support his case the learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the court the articles dealt with by him. Having considered his arguments as well as seeing the product, we are convinced that the products being dealt with by the assessee strictly fall under entry 2(a)(v) and not under 2(a)(vi). The metal being used cannot under any circumstance be considered as corrugated metal sheets as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The lower authorities having considered the nature of the raw materials as well as the finished products being dealt with by the assessee, were of the clear view that the same fall under entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act and articles such as lathe channels, bottom and door frame section, cannot fall under entry 2(a)(vi) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. 8. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the lower authorities. We do not find any error committed by the lower authorities and the impugned order does not call for interference. 9. Accordingly the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The petitions being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed.