Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by A. Goyal. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision dated April 9, 2004 of the District Level Committee, whereby it has been held that the petitioner unit, in respect of the process of filtration of raw mustard oil to make mustard oil, is not entitled to the benefit of sales tax exemption notified through notification dated September 20, 1997 issued by the Government of Assam in exercise of powers under Section 9(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as, "the Act"). Consequent correction of the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner as well as the assessment of tax against the petitioner vide order dated July 9, 2004 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Goalpara have also been challenged in the instant writ petition.

3. Dr. A.K. Saraf, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner unit was set up in order to obtain the benefit of sales tax exemption granted by the notification dated September 20, 1997. After the unit was set up, the petitioner unit was granted the eligibility certificate on February 12, 2004 making it eligible for sales tax exemption, inter alia, for manufacturing finished products, namely "mustard oil", from "raw mustard oil".

4. However, by the impugned decision, the authorities have taken a decision to restrict the benefit of sales tax exemption only on the manufacturing process carried out by the petitioner, whereby mustard oil is produced from mustard seeds. The authorities have also taken the decision to deny the benefit of sales tax exemption for the process whereby, "mustard oil" is produced from "raw mustard oil" through a process in the petitioner's unit wherein raw mustard oil is processed to remove the crushed mustard seeds from the mustard oil and thereafter, pure mustard oil is produced through such process, in the factory of the petitioner.

5. Dr. A.K. Saraf referred to the definition of "manufacture" given in Section 2(22) of the Act to contend that the definition of "manufacture" is a very wide definition and it also includes the process of purification carried out in the factory of petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that under the scheme of the sales tax exemption in the notification dated September 20, 1997, no definition of "manufacture" has been given and accordingly, the wide definition of "manufacture" given under the Act may be accepted for the purpose of deciding on the entitlement of the petitioner, to sales tax exemption.

6. In support of interpretation of the word "manufacture", the learned Counsel has relied upon the decision reported in B.P. Oil Mills Ltd. v. Sales Tax Tribunal 1998 ECR 497 (SC), Ashirwad Ispat Udyog v. State Level Committee 1998 (62) ECC 606, Sonebhadra Fuels v. Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow (2006) 7 SCC 322.

7. The decision of this Court Megha Assam Coal Mines (India) Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in2005 140 STC 339 has been also cited by the learned senior counsel.

8. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the definition of "manufacture" given under Section 2(22) of the Act cannot be considered to apply to the manufacture process in the petitioner's unit whereby pure "mustard oil" is produced from "raw mustard oil" by the process of filtration. Accordingly, it is contended that the eligibility certificate initially granted to the petitioner for sales tax exemption has been rightly corrected and the petitioner has also been rightly fastened with the liability for payment of sales tax as there is no physical change in the basic raw material, since the petitioner is selling mustard oil after filtration of mustard oil.

9. In the B.P. Oil Mills case 1998 111 STC 188, the Supreme Court held that definition of "manufacture" given in Section 2(el) of the