c^v^Q^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR WRIT PETITION (Tl No. V(o\i(? of 2010 Petitioners ^ cS%-- fAf^'" ^ y ^-^^ ^' ^ ^' y ^ Respondents .(1) M/s Omanad Trading Co. a partnership Firm having its office at 59 Wardhaman Nagar Society, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh through its partner Ketan Kumar, S/o Shri Harshad Bhai Patel aged about 45 years, resident of, 59 Wardhaman Nagar Society Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Versus (1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Commercial Tax, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited, A-25 V.I.P. Estate Near V.I.P. Club Khamardih Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) through Managing Director. .(3) Managing Director District Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Union Ltd. & Conservator of Forest, Durg (C.G.). (4) Commissioner Commercial Tax Vanijyik Kar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur(C.G.) Before: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion iudaes ofthe Hon'ble Hiah Court of Judicature Chhattisciajti at Bilaspur. Petitioner under Articles 226 for issuance of suitable directions orders or writs includina writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari , Prohibition etc. ga 'w l;.l'j- 8i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU^ WRIT PETITION m N0. 5648 OF 2010 PETITIONER M/s Omanad Trading Co. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Arun (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Const^ution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 6th day of October, 2010) 1. The question arising from the facts asto whether the purchase oftendu leaves by the petitioner, who is registered as exporter, comes within the purview of the inter-state sale or intra-state sale. 2. The aforesaid question already came up for consideration before this Court in M/s. Shyam Biri Works Ltd. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters and the same has been decided holding that the sale is "intra-state sale". 3. In view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Shyam Biri Works Ltd. (supra), this petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge B;':K B1 R; B}S i'ls- ' W.P. No.2060 of 2002 (decided on 1-10-2010)