ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) Since both these Tax Revision Cases arise out of the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dt.31.12.2003 in TA.No.133 & 134 of 1999, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’), the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-State, learned counsel appearing for respondent in both the TRCs, and perused the record. 3. These revisions are filed at the behest of the State being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal had held that the sponge iron purchased by the petitioner is not classifiable under Entry 2A of the Schedule-III to the Act, and consequently not taxable at purchase point. 4. On behalf of the State it is contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the revisional orders of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner without appreciating that the issue under consideration before the Deputy Commissioner was altogether different than the issue under consideration in revision proceedings. 5. On behalf of the State it is also contended that the Tribunal having held that sponge iron is not liable to tax at the last purchase point i.e., in the hands of the appellant, ought to have remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to levy tax on the resultant steel ingots, billets/steel structures, etc., manufactured by the assessee instead of holding that the set-off of tax already paid on sponge iron should not be given, and thus, committed error in not following its own order in TA.No.668/1995, dt.10.08.1999 passed in assessee’s own case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent would submit that the Tribunal in TA.No.133/1999 had followed its Full Bench decision in appellant’s own case in TA.No.668/1995,dt.10.08.1999, for the assessment year 1990- 91, wherein it was held that the sponge iron does not fall either under Entry 2A or Entry 2(xvi) or Entry 2(i) of the Schedule-III to the Act, and therefore the local purchase turnover is not entitled to set off in terms of G.O.No.763, Rev.(CT- II),dt.21.08.1990, however, had directed for the exclusion of turnover on which purchase tax was levied from the net taxable turnover by granting consequential relief of tax. 7. 7. On behalf of the respondent it is further contended that since, the revisional authority while passing the impugned order had erroneously added the local purchase of sponge iron to the net turn over by claiming that purchase of sponge iron is liable to taxed at the point of last purchase i.e., in the hands of the assessee, the order of the Tribunal in directing for exclusion of the aforesaid turnover to determine the net taxable turnover and also to calculate the set-off afresh in terms of G.O.763, does not call for any interference, much less gives rise to any question of law. 8. On behalf of the respondent-assessee, it is also contended that insofar as the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, since, the Tribunal had held that the issue with regard to taxability of local purchase of sponge iron having been adjudicated in TA.No.133/1999, the revision relating to the assessment year 1992-93 is without any legal foundation and thus, having annulled the said revision, the same does not give rise to any question of law for the petitioner-State to file the present Revision before this Court. 9. We have taken note of the respective submissions made. 10. Firstly, the issue for consideration before the Tribunal is as to whether the purchase of sponge iron by the respondent-assessee in the State is liable to be taxed under Entry 2A of the Schedule-III to the Act in the hands of the respondent-assessee being the last purchase. 11. The Tribunal by following the decision of the Full Bench rendered in TA.No.668/1995, dt.10.08.1999 for the year 1990-91, had held that the Entry 2A of Schedule-III to the Act does not cover within its ambit sponge iron. 12. The Full Bench of the Tribunal also took a similar view vide its order in TA.Nos.1012/1987 and 936/1987, dt.16.07.1990. 13. The said order of the Tribunal attained finality with regard to the classification of sponge iron. 14. Since, the Tribunal in the facts of the present case had only followed the Full Bench decision in the aforementioned cases, it cannot be said that the Tribunal having erred in holding that the purchase of sponge iron by the respondent- assess being liable to tax at the point of last purchase for the revisional authority to include the purchase turnover while determining the net taxable turnover. 15. 15. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the purchase turnover of sponge iron has to be excluded while determining the net taxable turnover of the respondent-assessee. 16. Though on behalf of the revision petitioner-State it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have directed reworking of the set-off in terms of G.O.No.763, after excluding the local purchases from the net taxable turnover, it is to be noted that since, the goods, namely sponge iron, purchased by the respondent-assessee are held to be not falling under Entry 2A of the Schedule-III to the Act and inasmuch as there is no other corresponding entry, the same would have to be classified as general items falling under Schedule-VII to the Act, being liable to tax at the point of first sale in the State. 17. Since, the sale of sponge iron is not first sale in the hands of the respondent-assessee, there would be no liability on the assessee to pay tax on its purchases, as the said sponge iron purchased by the respondent-assessee is used in the manufacture of billets, steel ingots/structures. 18. Insofar as the benefit of set-off under G.O.No.763 is concerned, since, the aforesaid GO allows set-off of tax paid on steel scrap items finding place in sub-entries(vi) of Entry 2 and Entry 2A of Schedule-III to the Act, and as the sponge iron is not classifiable under any of the two entries, the tax paid on purchase of sponge iron is not eligible for set-off in terms of G.O.763, and it is for the said reason, the Tribunal while holding that purchase of sponge iron by the respondent- assessee would not be liable to tax in its hands under Entry 2A of the Schedule-III to the Act, had directed that the turnover relating to purchase needs to be excluded from determination of net taxable turnover and thereafter rework the set-off by excluding the tax paid on such purchase of sponge iron. 19. The said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the considered view of this Court does not suffer from any perversity or error for the revision petitioner-State to feel aggrieved or the said order of the Tribunal giving rise to question of law, for the State to file the present Revision. 20. 19. The said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the considered view of this Court does not suffer from any perversity or error for the revision petitioner-State to feel aggrieved or the said order of the Tribunal giving rise to question of law, for the State to file the present Revision. 20. Further, since it is not shown to this Court of the Full Bench order of the Tribunal in TA.Nos.1012/1987 and 936/1987, dt.16.07.1990, being subject matter of any revision before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner- State is required to maintain consistency even though the principle of res judicata does not strictly apply in tax matters. 21. Accordingly, both the TRCs are devoid of merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.