fU»"^ CF0000110811 1 ^ '^r~ IN THE HIGH COU8T OF PiAOHYA PRAOESH AT 3ABALPUR i^ N. t» n ^n U0( ,-^,- ^ U.P. NO.^^6 0, ,gg4 ^^^ ^ loner Respondents Pl/3 Syastia Stssls, Saipur <»Uersusm State of Badhya Pradesh and five others .^(!'M .....^Llc^^^ PETITION UNOE8 A8TICLE 226/227 OF TH£ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION 1< PARTICULARS OF TXE PETJTIOMER - N/s Svastic Steels, Bevpyri^ Raipur throygh its Parfrner Shri Plahaveer Prasad 3ain, Ganesh Raro Na§ar, Ralviya,' Raipur (M.P) P.^DP r\. ">^.. /- rp^.^^ .. ^'.rx "-i-. .^i^'y 2« DETftIlA fFTHE RESPONOENTS - (1) Stateof PIadhya Pradesh throygh Secretary^ Inctvsfcries DepartoBnt^ Vallabh Bhayan, Bhopal . (2) State Leveil Comroittee, Tax Benefit SectioR throygh Director ©fIndystriQS^ Bhopal (3) General MaRager^ Qistricfc Industries Centre Raipur (fvi.P) (4) Commissioner of Sales Tax> Nadhya Pradesh, Indore (f1,P) (5) Sales Tax Officer, Raipur Circle IV, Raipur /«/. (R.P)! .l\--—3^—&Afi-"^'Lr-lu-Alle- .J^£-__TtJ-f-- XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T (q^i<=t)3TT^T rfifcT .Sh^lch^T 3^T <^TPTR?W, ^Tl1^<l<$, f^TO1y —^^^°^6^± w^^n ^^i^ - --- - ----Y- ^ -^Oft- f^g' 3:n^T?^TW^fi1cT ctii^f<n4i^ wi^it ^" fe^ <fa«i< ^3Tf^'R'3TI^T 12-7-2005 Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, ^dvocatQ appears on behalf of Mr. H.S. Shrivastava, counsel for the petiticjner. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Deppty Advocate General for the State/ respondents. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner has flted thjis writ petition questioning the legality of order dated 29-9-1994 (Annexure|P-1) cancelling the eligibility certificate and also for quashment of the instruc^jons issued by the Commissioner of Sates Tax vide order dated 5-12-1989 |(Annexure P-2) being without jurisdjction, whereby the Commissioner of S^les Tax, Madhya Pradesh, held that "The expression 'Processing Industry' fi the conditjon specified against item 2 (vii) of the Schedule to S.R.D. notificatton No.A-3-11-86(74)ST-V dated 26-10-86 woutd not cover any such industri^l unitwhere the processing underteken by it does not lead to the manufactL<re of any goods within the meaning of the j expression manufacture defined General Sales Tax Act, 1958". Learned counsel for botH in Section 2 (j) of the Madhya Pradesh the parties agreed that this matter is squarely covered by the decisijon of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashirwad Ispat Udyog and othe^s vs. State Level Committee and others reported in (1999) 32 VKN 65. tn |his matter similar question was considered by the Apex Court and the Apex| and cutting them jnto strips of ^ |Court held that "Purchase of steel scraps ^arious sizes for use by rolling mills and foundrtes with help of shearing nlachines and glass cutting •- Such process falls within special definition of 'm^nufacture' - MPGST Act, 1958, Sections 2 (j). 12 Notification No.A-3-11-86(7!4)/ST-V, dated 16-10-86". ___^ XI-HC-22 3:^^Ni<rt^, ^xn^Ko, fa<ni'My . co^'^^o^/?^ ^il^^tl $b+ll^ ---------- ^ ^^— f^[' 3Ti^T^F RTiicb3TI^T ^W^^ftcT /- 3?n^r ^<TTW^1N ^ ^ Therefore, in view^of the a^ deserves to be allowed. Accordingll 29-9-1994 (Annexure P-1) cancellin^ 5-12-1989 (Annexure P-2) passed b^ Parties are entitled for certifiey cbi^Id^^lwT^f fe^<f^t^« ^3Tf^T3n^r ove Apex Court judgment, this petition ^, the petition is allowed and order dated the eligibjlity certificate and order dated the Commissioner are quashed. copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge y^ ^' (^^^T) ^ ^'