y‘w H‘GH COURT 9F CEQ%?TE$G§FH A“? BELA$FU§€ a we Bémh : i-ieii’bié $%?§H.L.Qa‘§.ia.c.n5.’ WP. Neué‘ééQ of “$32 \ Mis Laxmi lspat industries lndustriai Area Bhanpuri, Raipur through the Proprietor Ram Sagar Bhanpuri; Raipur: MP Versug Rgsmndai‘sk, 1. Sales Tax Officer, Raipur Circle, Raipur :giimnex; __...,_L...gm,m 2. Divisional Dyr Commiasloner a? Sales Tax; Ralpur, MP. 3, Asstt. Commlasioner of Sales Tax Ralpur, MP Erese : Shri l’v‘lanindra Shrivagtava: Sr. Counsel wiTh A o Das for Shrl Sumesh Bajaj‘, GA for rhe respondent/Stare, mr r. t the petitioner. ' QEJEL ORQER {Passao rm $5; Aprézs 2am") “i‘he petl‘ricner is a dealer regi$tered under i MP. General 8ales Tax Aci (for short ‘Act’y Petltlerler claims thai he iS engaged in éhe manufaciure o? various S‘eei irems from the iron. steei scrap. 2. Petitioner had approached the assessing authoriiy for gran? ef Recognition Certificate as envisaged under Seciion 16 (C) 0f ihe Aci. The request or rhe petitiorrer was rejectec‘a by auiheriw by an order dared 12.09.1990 (Anrrexure P-4). Aggrieved by the said order the petiiiener was before the Revisienei Authority, who by ire order dated 08311992 (Anoexure P—5) confirmed the orcier passed by Erie assessing authority. Aggrieved by rhe aforesaio‘ Ewe the assessing <5\ ordet's, the peiitiener is before 'this Cami in this petition fiied Linda? Article 228/22? o? the Comsiitution of india‘ 3; A? the iime of heafing o? the petition, ihe counse! f6: the getiiiwer has woduceci before me the gudgment of ihe Hm’bie Sapreme Cour‘: in ihe matters of Ashii'wad ispa‘i Ueiyeg anei oii'ieis etc. Ve. §iate Level Cammitiee and oihefs, AR i9$§ $umeme Ceuri ‘i’i‘i. in the said céecision Hen’bie the Supreme Court has absewed as ender: “in the special definiticn given in $.20) 0f ihe Act ‘manufaci'we’ has been defined as inciuding a process Oi' manner of preducing, coiiecting, exiraei'ing, pi‘epanng er making any gocdsi There can be n0 doubi whatsoever the? “coiéeeting” goods dees net resuit in the production of a new articie There is, therefere, inhereni evie’ence in the definiiion iiseif that me narrow meaning 0f the were iimanufee’ture" was not iniended to be appiieci in the said Act. Again, ihe definition speaks of “the proceee of lapping the branches (of trees}, cutting t‘ne trunks". The iopoing oi branches end the cutting of trunks of trees eiso, seif evidentiy, does not produce e new erticie. The ciear words of the definition, therefore, must be given due weight and cannot be overiooked mereiy because in other contexts the word to the process of manufacture of new artistes. The treating of iron and steei scrap of considerable buik by cutting it down ‘oy mechanicai processes into pieces that may be conveniently utiiized in roiling miiis and foundries therefore talis within the wide definition of “manufacture” under 32$). MP. Nos.t333, teat: /, 2239 of 1§91". . i e“w. N ,g_ 4 . in View 9f the decimation of law, in my opinion the orders passed by the aasessing eutherity and éine ReviSEQnaI Au’ihsri'ty, requim ta be 3a asEde and ihe maiier i'equn'es i0 be remanded back ta the aswssing autnonty to re-Q’o ihe matten keeping in View ihe Eaw deciared by Hon‘bEe Supreme Court in the case of Aehérwad gene? §dyeg ené cthere e‘sc. Vs. $tate Lave! Committee and eéners. Acaci'dingiy} the fo§iowing $R§ER Tne writ petitien Es diseased cf. EL The impugned Greer dated 12.0Qfg990 (Annexure E14} passed by the assessing authority and order dated QS.O?.’§QQ2 (Annexwe P45) paseed the Revisionaé Authority, are set aside. ' kk iii. The maiter is remanded back to éhe assessing authority to re-do ihe matter in accordance with iaw and keeping in View ihe iaw deciared by Hon’bie Supreme Court in she case er .ékshimred iseet Lidyeg end others sic. Vs. $toée Levei Committee and oieers. v. Grdereci accordingly.