LN! THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT EiiLASWjR w.P.N0. l V 5’1 [2902 PET!T!QNER: M/s Rajaram Maize Prgducts, SuLgi Road, Mohad, Tahsi! & District : Rajnandgaen (C.G.) through its Proprieior Shri Suryakant Gupta, 3.19. Late Shr‘i Rajaram Gupta, ' , aged about 58 years, Lla. Kailash Hagar, Rajnandnaon (Chhattisgarh) “a... RESPQNDENT$ tate of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Cemmercial Tax, Mantrataya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Additional Cemmissinner, Ccmmereia! Tax, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Arm-Rajnandgzmn o OL.\ , ‘ Dar-mm \ II 7 W: 1 ii/la ofiVi, \a‘.’ F. 0 ‘ $ Assistant Cewmissiener, Commercia! Tax, Durg (Chha‘rtisgarh) S ‘ a ' ~ wmf PETs'nOM umgaa ARTlcLE 22m ens ‘ ngN 9F mmA 59R !ssUAMcE 9:; WR; F QgRTIQRAR uaTAv LE wan 19 s R 9RDER OR oRaERs: vlh27 9F THE f LN MATU A QAMu$ §R raging»; Arm QmER ’wRsTs/ DIREQTIQM QR mRE T!0N emu Q : M RE Q§- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1450 of 2002 ETITIONER : M/s. Rajaram Maize Products. VERSUS : State of Chhaltisgarh & Others. ESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION N0. 1451 of 2002 PETITIONER : M/s. Rajaram Maize Products. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Stat€ of Chhattisgarh & Others. Post for pronouncement Ofthc order on .85$ of September, 2010 t Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1450 of 2002 PETITIONFR : M/s, Rajaram Maize Products. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. AND WRIT PETITION No. 1451 of 2002 : M/s. Raj aram Maize Products. VERSUS RESPONDENT§ : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PETITIONFR OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish KI Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Smiti Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. State/respondents. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the ORDER (Delivered on¥.8f.‘day of September, 2010) . Both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.1450 & 1451 of 2002, involve a common question of law based on identical facts between the same parties, except the different registration numbers, thus, they are bein disposed of by this common order. The petitioner impugns the legality and validity of the order dated. 29.06.2001 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, upholding the orders passed by the authorities below wherein they have held that the maize oil and maize cake are produced during preparation of starch from maizehand thus, are not entitled to exemption under notification dated 30.03. l 994 (Annexure P/S). \ g A Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the identical issue came into consideration with regard to exemption under notification dated 30.03.1994, issued by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a petition filed by the sister concern of the present petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Vide order dated 24.12.2009, in Rajaram & Brothers v. Commissioner 0f Commercial Tax, MP. & Others], held that the maize oil and cake are by-products of maize, being by products of cereals. Thus, the petitioner therein was granted exemption of the same under notification dated 30.03.1994. . Ms. Sharma would further submit that maize is the primary produce and in the process of obtaining starch. germ, gluten, grit and husk, _ Maize oil and cake are produced which are by—products of food—grain and cereals. There is no dispute that the maize is a cereal under serial No. 7 of the schedule under the notification dated 30.03.1994. The by- products offood—grains and cereals are exempted from taxes. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that in the process of manufacturing of starch from maize, the by-products like husk, gluten, germ, grit are roduced. Grain germ is used as raw material for production of maize oil and maize cake. Thus, maize oil and maize cake are not by—products of the maize, but in the process of production of starch. Thus, maize cake and maize oil are not exempt from payment of taxes under the above-stated notification. ’ 2010] 32 VST 364 . p b) . The Supreme Court, i Inian Farmers Fertilizer Coop. td. . n d s L v C..E. Ahmedabad2, observed that the exemption notification must be C so construed as to give due weight to the liberal language it ues. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Prade, onsidering . sh c the same notification, in Rajaram & Brolhers (sra) has observed as up under: “. When admittedl “mize” is seied as “rls” so also “maize oil” and cake” to be the “by-product of “aize” then s essary corollary “y-pruct of cereal”, .e. “by-product of maize” wou be exempt frm payment of sales tax by virtue of exemtio notificio dated March 30, 1994 (annexure P/2) read wth cause i of entry 91 of Schedule l te MPCT Act. the ords, once it is admitted th “maize” is a “ceeals” and commodity in question, i.e. “maiz oil/cake” are by—products of “maize” then “by products of maize” would all within the four comers of claus (7) of exemption notification rea ith clause (ii) of entry 91 of Schedule of the MPT Act thereby exepting such byroducts from yent of sals ta . The sster concern of the petitioner are availing the exemption i suan to h order passed y the High Cout o Madhya Pres in purt te b r f adh m & m oi Raja Ra Brothers (supra), the same products, i.e. aize l and aize cake re in questio efor this Court ls. m a n be ao 9 . The notification dated 30.04.1994 (Annexure P/S) reads as under: “COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION No. A5-1/94/ST—V(55) Bhopal dated 30-3-94 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 0f the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), the State Government hereby exempts from 15‘ April 1994 the class of goods specified in column (2) of Scheduled below from payment of whole of tax under the said Act. E .LIT. 177 (S.C.) s l4 y a pcif ceea “ ” m a a nec bod s i ld o pn atn i l (i) of h In or w at r e f e d w I C m -p pam e x. SCHEDULE S1.No. Class of Goods XXX xxx xxx xxx Atta, Maida, Suji, Rawa, Flour, and other by products of foodgrains and cereals. xxx xxx” XXX XXX 1 0. Thus, I do not flnd any reason to take a contrary View as interpreted by ‘ the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Raja Ram & Brothers (supra), wherein the same notification was involved. ll.Thus, I am in respectful agreement with the decision in Raja Ram & Brothers (supra), that the maize oil and maize cakeare by-products of maize and are exempted from tax under the notification dated 30.04.1994 (Annexure P/S). The impugned orders dated 29.06.2001 (Annexure P/ 1 in both the writ petitions) are quashed, accordingly. 12. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. No order asto costs. Sdl Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i l