// IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JA Misc. §et1tion no. /1993 ... M/s Bhansali Construc Halwai Line, Sadar Ba Raipur; M.P. PE TI TI ONER Versus RES CNDTS a , PEN ... é’ 1 Sales—tax Officer: aipur Circle I, R Ripur’/ 5 .2 Dy. Commissioner of Sales—tax; Rai Mr: 9 3 M/s Rajaahiraj Industries Ltd. I S ndustrial Estate, eoni, M.P. ’PETITICN UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227_9F THE CONST NDIA FOR A WRIT IN TI’E NATEIRE F CERTI’ORARI, tiOn, Zarl NL P. ITU’I’I ON OF MANDMUS ETC . V 7 B I O A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2038 of 1992 M/s. Bhansali Construction VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Additional Sales Tax Officer, Raipur Circle I, Raipur & Others. , AND WRIT PETITION N0. 625 of 1993 PETITIONER 1 M/s. Bhansali Construction VERSUS Sales Tax Officer, Raipur Circle I, Raipur & Others. V RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava with Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER g ORAL[ (Passed on 30‘ day ofAugust, 2010) ’1. The petitioner, being a registered partnership firm, carrying on a business of manufacture and sale of tine containers at Raipur, seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 & 3 not to levy any tax on the sale of tin containers to M/s. Rajadhiraj Industries Ltd. and further sale of the same by the petitioner to respondent No.4 during the period of eligibility certificate for exemption from sales tax was granted. 2. The indisputable facts in brief, the petitioner has been selling tin containers to the respondent No.4 for use as raw material in the process of manufacture Vanaspati (Vegetable Oil). The respondent No.4, being a new industrial undertaking, was holding eligibility certificate dated 2.7.1985 under notification dated 23.10.1981 forxexemption from payment of sales 'tax from the period 1.3.1982 to 28.2.1989. In the said eligibility certificate at serial No.14 all raw materials i.e. different kind of containers mentioned at serial No.14 in the certificate dated 2.7.1985 (Annexure P-2) was provided under notification dated 1.5.1982 (Annexure P-l) issued by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, all classes of goods in Schedule II appended to the Act were exempted from the payment of sale tax under Section 6 of the Act when sold to a dealer holding eligibility certificate under the notification dated 23.10.1981. Schedule II appended to the Act includes tin containers manufactured by the petitioner. The exemption was subject to certain conditions provided in the Schedule, which was inforce upto 7.6. 1990. 3. Admittedly, the respondent No.4 was granted eligibility certificate under the notification dated 2.7.1985 (Annexure Pu2). The petitioner received declarations for sales upto 15.3.1985 from the respondent No.4 duly countersigned by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 refused to issue declaration on the ground that the respondent No.2 had declined to countersign the declaration, though the petitioner was entitled to exemption till 28.2.1989 as is evident from certificate of eligibility granted to the respondent No.4 on 2.7.1985 (Annexure P-2). He was asked to deposit tax and penalty was also imposed for not paying the tax along-with quarterly returns. 4. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner 0f Sales Tax, Raipur. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, remanded the cases by order dated 24.5.1989, 8.10.1990 and 8.10.199Q respectively, to allow reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to frle the declarations (Annexure P-4). In the meantime, the respondent No.4 filed a writ petition being M.P.No.4488 of 1988 before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. The High Court of M.P., relying on a decision of the Supreme Courtin case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. State ofMP. and another], observed and held as under :- "On the other hand it has been contended by the learned Dy. Advocate General that the Sales Tax Officer visited the place of petitioner and found that till 1.3.82 manufacture of hydrogenated oil, soap and the container (tin) did not take place. However, on the enquiry it was gathered that the tins are going to be manufactured after 1982 and these goods will be manufactured in future and thus on this ground Annexure-R—V dated 19.1.89 was issued. On bare perusal of eligibility certificate (Annexure-P-4) it is revealed that at Item No. 14 “Different kind of containers” is included as raw material and the certificate of eligibility was valid from 1.3.82 to 28.2.89. Thus, according to me, in View of the decision of Birla Juteand Industries Ltd. (supra) there cannot be any deletion from the retrospective effect. The petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-R-V dated 19.1.1989 is hereby accordingly set aside. The security amount, if any deposited, may be refunded to the petitioner. No costs.” 5. The issue involved in the present case on hand is the same, which was considered by the High Court ofM.P. in M.P. No.4488/l988 and the above stated order was passed. 1(2000) 119 STC 14 SC 6. The period of assessment was prior to 28.2.1989 in both the cases and thus, they are squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of M.P. I am in respectiill agreement that the observation and order of the High Court of MP in M.P.No. 4488/1988 as the facts and question of law involved in the petitions on hand is the same. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to declaration duly countersigned by the Sales Tax Officer, till the period of exemption certificate granted to the respondent No.4 for sale of tin containers to the respondent No.4. No order asto costs. Ashok Sd/a SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge