IN THE HIGH Comiqz? MADHYA PRADEs‘HVAAT JABALPURa M93. No. gqg /‘ 1991. , TiTxomg Bas£ar Oil Mill & inaustries Lt&. JAGDALPUR, Through : Brafullar Panigrahi son o£‘3hri K.P;Panigr geaf28 years. JAGDALPUR. (M.PL}. gg : , a a ‘v 3R:sUss EESEONDENTS: 1° , ££ate Level Committae, Cammissioner o£ industries BHOPAL. _(M.P.; ). r , e D / 2‘ General Managr, f istrict xndustries Centre; JAGDALPUR. (M. P¢ ). Aeeistant Commissiener of Sales Tax, RAI?UR. (M.P.}J Comssioner‘6£‘£ales Tax, INDRE (M.P. . 3. ). w mi O. ) PETITIUN mime AxTICLEe 22/227 OF THE comyrrmrrit: OF XNDIg. R é $ é f4 6 f w u; w’w (m- W r l-HC>78 X m mm‘m . .......a49.6..'.}?3.i%~...fi.\.. WWWW . 039 E200 I anéam (iafaafa‘) an€2rairiéaw . awarégmw mmmm’m mwmz¥mm - amfiw‘anéQT 23-06-2005 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Advocate for the State. the ’paxtics. 2. By this petition under Constitution of India, the petiti 3. Smt. Ghai, learned eouns contended that the petitioner established a new industry as per notincation No.A—3-41481(24)/ST-V dated 29-6- 1982. ‘ It exemption mm payment of sales Tax for a period of nve years mm the date of production, as the districtof Bastar was in Category ‘C’ of Paxt—II o ‘ lcontended that during the ccursc: L ail by the solvent extraction Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Heard leamed counsel for is further contended that the Article 226/227 of the er has challenged the oniers Annexure-P/8 and P/ 9, whereh the petitioner’s applications 1 appearing for the peu'n'oner V have been rejected. petitioner was entitled for' i‘ the ndtihcation. of manufacture [of vegetable process the petitioner also it is also Advocate and Smt. Smit Ghai, sat A 4x mum-cw em»: ‘4‘ x manufactumd D-Oiled Cakes which is a bye-proauct of vegetable oil. It is also contended that the petitioner Eed an l application (Annexurc—P/5) for exemption mm payment of Sales‘Tax befom respondent No.2. The eligibility cer1i&cate . (Annexure—P/é) was issued foji vegetable oil only and it did not cover D-Oiled Cakes. Le ned counsel for the petiu'oner‘ contended that the petitio er moved an application (Annexure-P/7) for amendmen in the eligibility certincate so that he may be exempted do payment of Tax on D—Oiled Cakes as well. It is also conte ded that Without hearing the petitioner the said amendmen application has been rejected Vide Annexure-P/8 on the / und of delay. It is also contended that D-Oiled Cakes is a7 bye-product of vegetable oil and as such exemption should have been granted. Smt. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner nled a review apphcau'on, which has also been rejected ‘vide Annexure-P/ 9. (qweW) E“. XI—HC—22