uggk\1\\\n\\\\\\\us\ \\\\\\\c\\;l 12819 . . / r ’ V ..... ] J§ , N , ”; ’ I ‘ 1N“m:~: HQ CQURT OF wwam PwdSH AT JABALpma m 9 Mt P} 1\b.& 0f» .19 i _ Nx/siiau K5 xspatf Gan‘nai‘a iggliimt -’ ‘ _.. vEagJs .. , ‘ ETITIGN‘rER P ‘ , / d , 4 1;? State of Madhya‘Praesh‘,’ Ihrough the $ecrgtaryg, x §ndu§cries ‘ allabh §hawan,: Department, ‘ BHOPMn h ‘1 / 2.‘ 3ta'te Level Cbmmittee,’ _ , Throggh§irector0f Industrieps,_ ‘7 Wax Benefit section,- - ‘ / VPVanchanan (Building; ' ‘ New Market, — BHOP&3 ’ :r 3*:\Qommissioner of Saleswtax,‘ Madhya Pradesh; . gNDOBE-w V 4; Divisional Deputy Comniss‘ion sags-tax, ' ' l wha v K , ‘ L7 1/ 5;: Raipur The sales-tax Circle Officer; II; ' ‘, } " HgUR. “ f \xbmnmN 0F mom uNwaR FOR A wRIT AarlcLEs INT’rE 226 NATUBE & 227 OF OF CERTIORARIAWIDAW THE; omqs’rImT'ioN. _ qt:- & , h MM / I i./ er ‘ - S f§6 mm$ w?I¢H/"H mm anézim (WE) mmmma . mmtiwmn $Wanéw ‘ 15-9-2005 Mr. Ashish Shrivashva’, cou ass} for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General for the State! respondents. Heard both the oounsel. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 22$ & 227 : of the Constitution of India, questioi ring the legality; propriety and oorreo’tneesv of order dated 11-2-1991 (An re P41) passed by the State Levei Committee, whereby the Comm' ee cancelled the recognition oatmcate granted to the petitioner on the ground that the proeess in which he petitioner is engaged does not f l under the category of the definition of -manuraciure' under section 2 '(i) d the M.P.e7e.T. Act. 195a. . Learned counsel for the pe tioner submits that the matter is squarely ’ covered by‘the decision of Supre e Court in the matter of Ashirwad lspat Udyog and others Vs. State L vel Committee and others feported in (1999) 32 VKN 65, to which lear Deputy Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh has no disputed. V A ln the above cited matter, Apex Court and it was held that “Purchase of steel sc ps and cutting them into strips of various sizes for u e by rolling mills and'foundries with help of shear machines'and glass cutting — Such process fal within special definition of ‘manufacture' — MP T Act, 1958, Sections 2 (D, 12 Notification No.A-3-1 286(74)/ST~V, dated 16-10 ". Therefore, in view of the bove judgment of the Apex Court, the instant petition deserves to be allo ed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. similar question was considered by the swastzoos - 2b,ooo n u ‘ n i l mma; wPiékéLwxu \EQ iT-‘Lm‘ mam (WE) _mfa$=ltm?§f§ anémmEm amma'm mmwaanéa y 2 WW ~’ I mama: P-1 1) Icancelling the recognition certificate nexure P-1 2) passed by the Divisional / Soma Order dated 11-2-1 991 (Annexure and notice dated 5-2-1991 (Ar Commissioner, Sales Tax, Raipurrre quashed. No 0rd Parties are entitied for certi red copy of this order er as to costs. / /// ”/édl- c-BHADOO r /