Dismissing the appeal the Court held that S. 260A (4) does not empower the High Court to reconsider its earlier view in the same proceedings and reformulate a question of law which it had earlier refused to formulate. In other words, (1) a question that had escaped the court’s earlier attention, or (2) a question the appellant had not presented to the court, or even (3) a question that cropped up because of subsequent developments stands on a different footing. But a question which the High Court consciously refused to treat as a substantial question of law fails to qualify under any of the above three categories. Even if the principle of res judicata does not apply to tax matters, consistency and certainty of law would require the State to take a uniform position and not change its stand in the absence of change in facts or the law.( AY.2008-09)