A.K. Goel, J.

1. This order will dispose of W.P. (C) No. 2603 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 4133 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 2153 of 2010 as all the three petitions have been filed by the same petitioner on the same issue. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated May 2, 2009 passed by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam, followed by order dated February 14, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and consequential assessment order. Case of the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing lubricating and fuel oil out of used oil. As per the Industrial Policy of 2003, sales tax exemption for seven years was permissible to eligible units. The petitioner, claiming to be eligible, applied for the said benefit, which was considered in accordance with the industrial policy and the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption for Pipeline Units) Order, 2005. Eligibility certificate dated July 19, 2007 was issued in his favour granting benefit from March 20, 2006 to March 19, 2013. Accordingly, certificate of entitlement was also issued to the petitioner. However, on August 29, 2008, the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam withdrew the sales tax exemption which was challenged vide W.P. (C) No. 4406 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed on February 6, 2009 on the ground that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity in the matter. Thereafter, order dated May 2, 2009 was passed on the ground that the activity of the petitioner could not be termed as manufacturing, which was a condition for the grant of concession. The petitioner challenged the order dated May 2, 2009 and also order dated February 14, 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The petitioner has also challenged consequential assessment order.

2. According to the petitioner, the process carried out by him amounts to manufacturing and, accordingly, entitlement and eligibility certificate having been issued, the same could not be withdrawn merely by change of opinion already formed in absence of any misstatement or suppression on the part of the petitioner.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eligibility certificate mentions the raw materials and the finished products as declared by the petitioner as follows:

5. On the basis of the above particulars, the activity of the petitioner was treated to be manufacturing, treating the finished product to be different from raw material. Inspite of this, in the impugned order, it has been held that no manufacturing was involved and exemption granted was liable to be cancelled.

6. The order passed by the Director of Industries refers to the order of the Commissioner of Taxes, taking a view that since no new commodity emerges, no manufacturing is involved. The principle has been applied to the case of the petitioner as follows:

It is found that there are four steps in the refining process:

(1) Dehydration: where the waste lubricants are being processed at about a temperature of 150 C to remove the water content in the used oil.

(2) Distillation: (i) the 1st function of this process is to remove from the used oil, fraction of such as SAE5 and SAE10 grades. This accomplished under a vacuum of 710 mm Hg to 720 mm Hg and a temperature of 150 C to 300 C is applied. The vapours of the fraction are routed through water cooled condenser and collected in receiver as fuel oil. (ii) The next second function of this process is to remove from the used oil, fraction of such as SAE20, SAE30 and SAE40 grades. This accomplished under a vacuum of 756 mm Hg to 759 mm Hg and a temperature of 360 C is applied. The vapours of the fraction arc routed through water cooled condenser and collected in receiver as raw base oil.

(3) Clay treatment: The recovered raw base oil are transferred in bleaching vessel, mixed with clay in an agitator and processed under a vacuum of 700 mm Hg at a tempe