<.!>• Petitioner Respondents HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 54SS of 2005 IVI/s Mahavir Iron & Steel Industries Through its Prop. Shri Anjani Goenka, RingRoadNo.2iRaipur(C.G.) Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department,Raipur 2. Additional Gommissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Raipur 3. AssistantCQmmissioner Commerciat Tax Department, Raipur Petitioner by Shri Ashish Shrivasiava, Advocate. Respondents by^Shrr NJK.Agrawai, Dy Advocate Qeneral. ORDER (Delivered on.?3/11/05) The'instant petition has been filed under Articte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of tndia by the petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 in Tevision against the order of assessment dated 28:11.1997 passed by respondent No.3 as the same has been partly allowed and a part relaxation in imposition of tax as wel! as penalty has been granted. 2. The case ofthe petitioner is that the petitioner-a Smat] Scale Industry, is engaged in processing iron and steel scrap materials and selling the same to the iconsumers. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the ChhattisgarhCommerciaiTaxAct, 1994 (inshorttheActof 1994'). The petition er was issu ed etigibilify/exeinptiein eertificate on 29.03.2000 fbr a period from 11.05.1990 to 23.1.£1:994^by:Distriet:Trade&Industries Centre, Raipur. ; The assessment" of th'e'- petittonsr's Indusfry was,- done by respondent No. 3 fbrtheperiod 01.04.1994to31.03.1995 andaecordingly atotaltax ofR&1,73,14,430/-albngwith penaltyunderSectio 17(3)0fthe Actof 1994 wasimposedvideoFderdated 28.11.1997. \ . cr ^-' 4. 1 The petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.2 under Section 62 of the Act of 1994 on the ground that the assessment is bad, illegaland arbitrary as the Company has been granted certificate of eligibility for exemption from sales tax vide order dated 29.03.2000 under the Act of 1894 for period from 11.05.1990 to 23.12.1994. Howeyer, the revision preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed after considering the eligibility certificate and extended the relaxation to the tune of Rs.1,36,97,138/- towards payment of sales tax and relaxation of Rs.34,24,329/- towards imposition of penalty. The impugned order of Annexure P/5 passed by the respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal as the same has been passed ignoring the iaw laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashirwad Udyog and others Vs. Stats Levej Committee and others reported in (1999132 VKN 65. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the petition is devoid of merits. Hesubmits that taking into cpnsideration the law laid down in the matter of Ashirwad Udyog and others (supra), certificate of eligibility for exemption 'of tax underM.P.General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the General Sales Tax Act, 1956, was issued to thepetitioner vide document ofAnnexure P/2 on 29.03.2000. The above exemption was availabte to the petitioner fora period commencingfrom 11.05.1990 and ending with 24 day of December 1994. The revision preferred by the petitioner agamst the assessment forthe assessment year commencing from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1995 has been partly allowed and tax assessment done bythe assessing authorityforthe period from 11.05.1990 to 24.12.1994 and impositton of penalty on the aforesaid amount, has been held contrary to taw and accordingly relaxation of Rs. 1,32,96,197/- has been accorded towards tax imposed under Section 14-A and penalty of Rs. 1,38,697/- under Section 17(3) of ,the Act of 1994 and further penalty of Rs.500/- under Rule 69-A, have been redueed. Since the petitioner was not entitled for any exemption for the period commencing from 24.12.1994 to 31.03.1995, therefore, no relaxation was granted to the petitioner for the transaction between the above period. have heard learned counsel for the parties. "sr\. •^ 6. From perusal of the order pf respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, Commereial Tax of Annexure P/3 and impugned order of Annexure P/5 passed in revision by respondent No.2-Additionat Commissioner, Commercial Tax, it appears that the assessment was done by not treating re-processing of iron industry as process of manufacture and thereby it was held thatthe petitioner's Industrywas not eiigible for exemption. However, eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner in the light ofthejudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ashirwad Uctyog and others (supra) and in the light ofthe certificate ofAnnexure P/2, the revisional authority by the order of Annexure P/5 has extended relaxation and imposition of commercial tax under Section 14-A of the Act of 1994 to the tune of Rs. 1,32,96.197/- and relaxation and penalty under Section 17(3) ofthe Act of 1994 to the tune of Rs. 33,24,049/- has been extended. Afurther relaxation of Rs.1,38.697/- under Section 17(3) ofthe Act of 1994 and Rs.500/- under Rute 69-A has also been extended. Thus inall a total relaxation of Rs. 1,36,97,138/- towards imposition oftax dnd Rs.34,24.329/- towards penalty has been accorded, 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not eligible for any exemption after 24.12.1994 since the assessment pertains to period fromOI.04.1993 to 31.03.1995, therefore the petitioner was not eiigible for any exemption for the period from 24.12.1994 to 31.03.1995. Thus, the Contention of the petitioner that he was etigible for exemption as perjudgment ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court which has not been accorded to him, is without any substance as the certificate of eligibility has been given tb the petitioner as per the judgment 6f the Hon'ble Apex Court and as pereiiglbility certificate of Annexure P/2, relaxation and imposition oftax has already been extended to the petitibner. 8. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- / Dhu'endra Mishra Judge H' II