BAL GOVIND AWASTY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short controversy involved in this case is that whether the "dried singhada", which is included in Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, "the Commercial Tax Act") is liable for commercial tax, while "green singhada" is exempted in Schedule I. It is also submitted that in Schedules I and II both, "singhada" finds place and item No. 2 of Schedule II word "singhada" has been explained by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax as "dried singhada", which is used for preparing flour. It is submitted by Shri Jain that the controversy has been decided by a Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 384 of 2006 (State of M.P. v. Ashok Kumar Dubey) vide order dated April 26, 2007, by which, the Division Bench considering the controversy has held thus:

(2.) AS the controversy has already been considered and decided by the Division Bench, we find no reason to differ with the aforesaid decision, this petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in State of M.P. v. Ashok Kumar Dubey (Writ Appeal No. 384 of 2006 decided on April 26, 2007). This petition is accordingly finally disposed of with no order as to costs.