The condition excluding major oil-seeds in the eligibility certificate is not beyond the scope of the exemption notification granted under section 12 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as the petitioner, being a soya bean extracting plant, does not consume major oil-seeds and falls under the category of low oil content seeds.

A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - Petitioner, by this petition, has prayed that the order dated August 9, 1988 (annexure F) amending the certificate of registration of the petitioner may be quashed and the State Level Committee may be directed to delete the words "excluding major oil-seeds" from conditions Nos. 4 and 5(d) of the eligibility certificate. It is also prayed that the reassessment orders (annexures H-1 and H-2) may be quashed. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as ultra vires. It is also prayed that the orders of assessment and demand of Rs. 1,37,05,311, created by the respondent No. 4 be quashed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a manufacturer and holds registration certificate bearing No. KGO/MHS/1888 under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") as well as No. KGO/MHS/646 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is the owner of the solvent extraction plant. In this plant, oil is extracted by chemical process from oil-seeds and oil cakes. Petitioner started commencement of production from June 15, 1983. The industry has been established in the backward area and is entitled to exemption from sales tax under notifications dated October 23, 1981 and June 29, 1982. He is also entitled to exemption from entry tax under the Entry Tax Act.

3. The petitioner, being the industry because of the notification of the Government (annexure A-1), is entitled to exemption of sales tax for a period of 9 years, as it falls in category "C" of that notification, because it is situated in Khargone. Certificate of registration was issued by the sales tax department in which all the raw material, viz., all kinds of oil-seeds, was mentioned. It is alleged that by virtue of the certificate, the petitioner is entitled to purchase raw material, viz., all kind of oil-seeds without payment of sales tax. Thereafter, eligibility certificate was issued by respondent No. 2, the State Level Committee, Department of Commerce and Industries. In condition No. 5(d), it has been mentioned that oil-seeds having high oil contents will not be allowed as a raw material. It is pointed out that the notifications only mention that the petitioner is exempted from payment of tax which means that he cannot be subjected to tax on purchases or sales effected by him under sections 6 and 7 of the Act. Likewise, exemption from payment of entry tax is claimed. It is pointed out that the State Level Committee has decided that all major oil-seeds will not be exempted from tax. According to the petitioner, the decision of the State Level Committee to the effect "all kinds of oil-seeds" is not correct and is beyond the scope of the exemption notification. The petitioner protested before the Sales Tax Officer that the notification does not lay down any condition as to what type of oil-seeds are included as raw material. It is also contended that classifying oil-seeds into low oil content and high oil content is not permitted by the notification and the action taken by the State Level Committee is not correct. The petitioner has challenged the amendment to the certificate of registration which was granted by the sales tax department and the order dated August 9, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (annexure F). For the period August 8, 1983 to September 30, 1983, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by order dated December 2, 1985 (annexure G) and certain demands have been raised as per annexures H-1 and H-2. Thereafter, the petitioner was also issued a notice under section 19(1) of the Act for reassessment of tax liability as per annexure L. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition. He has also challenged proviso (a) to sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Act being ultra vires, as it does not lay down any period of limitation and still reassessment could be made within two