A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notice issued under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dated July 1, 1992 (annexure 5) may be quashed and it may be declared that old batteries scrap purchased by the petitioner is raw material as defined in section 2 (mm) of the Act. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be restrained from reopening the assessment or passing any other adverse order in pursuance of the impugned notice. It may further be declared that the activities of manufacture of lead rods, ingots, etc. , falls within the definition of "manufacture" as defined in section 2 (k) of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer and seller of lead rods manufactured by it out of lead claimed from scrap of old batteries purchased by it under section 5c of the Act at concessional rate of tax against the prescribed declaration. THEse purchases were duly allowed by the assessing authority in the original assessment passed under section 10 (3) of the Act. However, on change of opinion perhaps on an audit objection the respondent No. 2 reopened the said assessment and disallowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax on purchases of raw material on the ground that the old batteries scrap is not raw material for the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner manufactures the lead rods by a complete process with the help of furnaces, dies, etc. , and the lead claimed from the scrap of old batteries is first melted and its chemical components are processed and then the liquid material is given the shape of lead rods, ingots, etc. , which are ultimately sold by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindustan Radiator [1986] 62 STC 374 has already held that once an item has been shown in the registration certificate as raw material then that is a conclusive proof of the fact that the item is raw material and the claim cannot be rejected. In Hindustan Radiator's case [1986] 62 STC 374 (Raj), the question was that as to whether the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on the purchase of hydrochloric acid or not. It was held that since the hydrochloric acid was included in the registration certificate as one of the raw materials for manufacture of radiators, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has held that it should be taken to be the conclusive proof of the fact that hydrochloric acid was raw material for the manufacture of radiators by the dealer-assessee and the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on the purchase of hydrochloric acid. However, the claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority but this Court held that once it is mentioned in the registration certificate that it is one of the raw materials for manufacture of the item then such inclusion shall be the conclusive proof and rejection of the claim for purchase on concessional rate of tax is not correct and is unjustified. It is observed as under : " Held, (i) that under section 5c (1) for paying concessional rate of tax on the sale or purchase price of raw material, the following conditions were to be satisfied : (1) The purchaser should be a registered dealer, (2) the purchase should be of raw material, (3) the raw material should be for manufacture of goods in the State and (4) the goods so manufactured should be sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade. The entry in the registration certificate issued to the dealer-assessee showed that hydrochloric acid was purchased as raw material for manufacture of the radiators and unless and until it was cancelled or modified it was binding on the department and was conclusive proof of the fact that hydrochloric acid was raw material for manufacture of radiators by the dealer-assessee. Further, there was nothing to show that the dealer-assessee had committed any breach of the conditions attached to the concession that was made available to it and in this view penalty under section 5c (2) could not be imposed; and (ii) that the finding recorded by the Board in earlier year that hydrochloric acid is raw material for the manufacture of radiator is not res judicata against the department and can be reagitated in the subsequent year or period. " A reply has been filed by the respondent and the respondent has taken the position that the assessing authority while issuing notice has made a reference to the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated August 24, 1977 delivered in the case of Jwala Metal Refinery v. C. T. O. , Circle B, Jaipur RRD 1978 NUC 40. In that case, it was held that the old batteries from which lead extracted is not raw material for manufacture of lead. On the basis of this a notice was given. A reply has also been filed by the respondent and the respondent has not disputed the inclusion of batteries as raw material in the certificate of registration of the petitioner (annexure 1), the relevant portion of which reads as under : " 3. Scraps of batteries for reclamation of lead, etc. " It is further alleged that only a notice has been given and the petitioner can appear before the authority and satisfy the authority about his point of view. Therefore, the matter should not be interfered with at this stage in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority then he has a right of appeal or revision before the authorities. It is true that I would not have interfered in the matter and would have directed the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate authority if he feels aggrieved under the provisions of the Act by way of appeal or revision. But the matter has been admitted by this Court way back in the year 1992 and the same is pending since then and more so a direct decision of a Division Bench of this Court is there wherein this Court has taken the view that once the item has been mentioned in the registration certificate for purchase of the raw material at concessional rate then it was a conclusive proof and further enquiry is not warranted in that case. Now, no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority and seek his remedy there. The decision given by the Board of Revenue in the case of Jwala Metal Refinery RRD 1978 NUC 40 is of 1977. Thereafter the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Radiators [1986] 62 STC 374 has taken a contrary view. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Board of Revenue is no more good law and it is overruled. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, I allow the writ petition and quash the notice dated July 1, 1992 (annexure 5 ). Writ petition allowed. . ;