cp 1< ^w IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION m No. ^W^ of 2010 Petitioners ^^ ^•&^y ^sy •"'y^>'' •^-1<'S '^A.' Respondents ^ (1) M/s Kusum Trading Cp. a proprietorship Firm having itsoffice Near Vasant Saw Mill, Ram Nagar, Gondia Maharashtra, through its proprietor Shri Snehal Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Bipinbhai Patel, aged about 34 years, resident of NearVasant Saw Mill, Ram Nagar, Gondia Maharashtra. Versus /. (1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Commercial Tax, Q.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, Kanker (C.G.). ^(4) Commissioner Commercial Tax Vanijyik Kar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ^' Before: Hon'ble the ChiefJusticejind his comDanion iudaes of the Hon'ble Hiah Court of Judicature Chhattisaarh at Bilaspur. Petitioner under Articles 226 for issuanceof suitable directions orders or writs includina writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition etc. ^-- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU R WRIT PETITION (T) N0. 3809 OF 2010 PETITIONER M/s Kusum Trading Co. Versus" State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 09th day of December, 2010) 1. The question arising from the facts of the instant case is asto whether the purchase of tendu leaves by the petitioner, who is registered as exporter, comes within the purview of the inter- state sale or intra-state sale. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised herein as aforestated has already been considered by this Coujl in M/s. Shyam Bih Works Ltd. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters and the present case is squarely covered by the said decision, wherein it was held that the sale was Intra-state sale'. 3. In View of foregoing and on perusal of the documents, it appears that the issue raised herein is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M/s. Shyam Bih Works Ltd.1 and, as such, the petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Gowri 1 W.P. No.2060 of 2002 (decided on 1-10-2010)