Judgment S. N. P. Singh, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, dated the 24th of April, 1968 (annexure 8) regarding the inclusion of certain goods in the registered dealers certificate for the purpose of special and concessional rate of sales tax as provided in Clause (b) of Sec.6a of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 [as amended by the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 (Bihar Act 20 of 1962)] hereinafter to be called "the Act". 2. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, the petitioner, hereinafter to be called "the company", is a public limited company having its head office at Bombay. The company manufactures and processes iron and steel and their by-products for sale at Jamshedpur. The company filed an application under Sec.6a of the Act and in the application it appended a list of goods for inclusion in the certificate thereunder. The learned Assistant Commissioner by his two orders allowed some of the items of goods to be included in the certificate of registration, but rejected the prayer for inclusion of other items. Against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, the company moved the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, in revision. The learned Deputy Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of August, 1964 (annexure 4), while disallowing certain articles mentioned in list II of the application, which was filed before him, set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the proceedings with a direction to pass revised orders after personal verification by a visit to the companys manufacturing premises in respect of articles mentioned in list I. According to the directions, if the articles mentioned in list I actually merged with the finished products, they ought to have been included in the companys certificate under Sec.6a of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the company moved the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar. The then Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, by his order dated the 26th of February, 1965 (annexure 5), allowed some more items of goods to be included in the certificate of registration. The company then moved the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, in revision. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal dismissed the application holding it not to be maintainable. The then Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, by his order dated the 26th of February, 1965 (annexure 5), allowed some more items of goods to be included in the certificate of registration. The company then moved the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, in revision. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal dismissed the application holding it not to be maintainable. The company then filed an application in this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which was numbered as C. W. J. C.1198 of 1966. A Division Bench of this court by the order dated the 14th of October, 1966 (annexure 6), quashed the order of the Commissioner dated the 26 th of February, 1965, with a direction to rehear the revision filed by the company and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the order, this court, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar and Ors. [1965] 16 S. T. C.259 and J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Anr. [1965] 16 S. T. C.563, made the following observations : apparently, the Commissioners attention was not drawn to the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, which have a direct bearing on the question. The views taken by the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are too narrow. We need not repeat the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the subject but we would direct the Commissioner to rehear the parties, carefully study the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and further scrutinise the list of goods for which concessional rate is asked for and pass proper orders on the same. He must examine with reference to every item of the goods, bearing in mind the somewhat liberal interpretation given to the words goods required directly for use in the manufacture or processing of any goods for sale, whether the concessional rate under Sec.6a can be availed of and then dispose of the matter according to law. The revision application filed by the company was reheard by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar. The revision application filed by the company was reheard by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar. The learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order dated the 24th of April, 1968, has allowed a large number of goods in the list furnished by the company to be included in the registration certificate in addition to those allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner previously. The company has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the prayer of the company for inclusion of certain goods in the registration certificate has been rejected by the Commissioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the learned Commissioner has not assigned any reason for disallowing the following items, namely, (1) Lamps, (2) Spare parts of plants and machinery, (3) Spare parts for Eimco Loader, (4) Spare parts for Commine Engines, (5) Spare parts for crane, (6) Spare parts for chipping hammers, (7) Screen vibrating and wire screen cloth, (8) Seal oil, (9) Wagon components and (10) Packing cotton yarn and flax. The petitioner has asserted that the items of goods mentioned above are directly required for the manufacturing and processing of steel and its by-products. In paragraph 42 of the application it has been stated in detail the use of each of the items of goods mentioned above in the manufacturing and processing of iron and steel by the company. With regard to the lamps (item No.1), it has been stated that they are required for lighting various plants in the works which remain in operation round the clock. According to the petitioner, as it is not possible to run the plant without electric lighting, the lamps are thus essentially required for carrying on the various manufacturing processes in the works. Regarding the various spare parts (items Nos.2 to 6), it has been stated that the spare parts are nothing but plants and machineries required for manufacturing and processing of iron and steel and their by-products. Regarding screen vibrating and wire screen cloth (item No.7), it has been stated that the screens are essential in the grading and sizing of ores in the preparation of the optimum size of material required for charging into the blast furnaces. According to the petitioner, these screens are also used in the coke ovens to ensure that the crushed coal is of the fineness required for charging it into the coke ovens. According to the petitioner, these screens are also used in the coke ovens to ensure that the crushed coal is of the fineness required for charging it into the coke ovens. With regard to the oil seal (item No.8) it has been stated that they are essential parts of all lubricating and hydraulic equipments used in various machineries in the works. As regards wagon components (item No.9) it has been stated that wagons are required for movement of raw materials, stores, steel mill rolls, semi-finished and finished products between the various plant departments. The components of the wagons are required for keeping the wagons in proper running order. As regards packing cotton yarn and flax (item No.10), it has been stated that the joints of pipes used for carrying gas, oil, water, steam, fuel, lubricants, etc. it steel plant have to be made leak-proof. It has further been stated that packing is used as a sealing medium in steam engines and hydraulic equipments. I may state here that before the leaned Commissioner an affidavit sworn by the Assistant Purchasing Officer of the company was filed. In the list attached with the affidavit 110 items of goods that particular item of goods was used, was specifically stated. The 10 items of goods in question were mentioned as items Nos.62,84, 86, 87, 90,93,94,97,109 and 71 respectively. 4. Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted before us that the learned Commissioner was not justified in disallowing the prayer of the petitioner for inclusion of the ten items of goods in question under Sec.6a of the Act. 5. Mr. Shreenath Singh leaned counsel No.1 appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the Commissioner has rightly disallowed the prayer of the company for inclusion of the 10 items of goods in question in the certificate of registration under Sec.6a of the Act inasmuch as the goods in question are not required by the company "directly" for the manufacture and processing of iron and steel and their by-products. He sought to distinguish the two decisions of the Supreme Court on the ground that in those two cases there was no question of interpretation of Sec.6a of the Act, but of Sec.8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956), hereinafter to be called "the Central Act" and Rule 13 of the Rules framed under that Act. According to the learned counsel, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have given a processing of goods for sale" occurring in Sec.13 of the Central Act because of the absence of the word "directly" before the word "used" in the Central Act. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel. No counter-affidavit denying that the 10 items of goods in question are not (sic) directly required for use for the manufacturing and processing of iron and steel and their by-products was filed on behalf of the State or the sales tax department before the Commissioner nor such an affidavit has been filed in this court. The learned Commissioner, as it appears from the impugned order, was conscious of the fact that the word "directly" which occurs in the Bihar Act dose not find a place in the Central Act but he has allowed a number of items of goods similar to the 10 items of goods in question to be included in the certificate of registration under Sec.6a of the Act. In spite of the clear directions from this court in C. W. J. C. No.1198 of 1966, he has not given any reason for disallowing the claim of the company in respect of the 10 items of goods. It is really difficult to appreciate the distinction which has been made by the learned Commissioner in allowing certain parts of machineries and disallowing the parts of machineries mentioned in items Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 of the list in paragraph 28 of the application. Regarding item No.2 (spare parts of plants and machinery), I am of the opinion that that has been rightly disallowed by the Commissioner because there is vagueness in that item and the petitioner has claimed separately various spare parts of machineries under different items as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. With regard to item No.1 (lamps) used for lighting the various plants in the works, the learned Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the company. I may mention here that in the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Anr. [1965] 16 S. T. C.563, one of the points for consideration was whether the electrical equipment would fall within the terms of the rules framed under Sec.13 of the Central Act. I may mention here that in the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Anr. [1965] 16 S. T. C.563, one of the points for consideration was whether the electrical equipment would fall within the terms of the rules framed under Sec.13 of the Central Act. While considering that question it was observed as follows: the expression electricals is somewhat vague. But in a factory manufacturing cotton and other textiles, certain electrical equipment in the present stage of development would be commercially necessary. For instance, without electric lighting it would be very difficult to carry on the business. Again electrical humidifiers, exhaust fans and similar electrical equipment would in the modern conditions of technological development normally be regarded as equipment necessary to effectually carry on the manufacturing process. We are not prepared to agree with the High Court that, in order that electrical equipment should fall within the terms of Rule 13, it must be an ingredient of the finished goods to be prepared, or it must be a commodity which is used in the creation of goods. If, having regard to normal conditions prevalent in the industry, production of the finished goods would be difficult without the use of electrical equipment, the equipment would be regarded as intended for use in the manufacture of goods for sale and such a test, in our judgment, is satisfied by the expression electricals. This would of course not include electrical equipment not directly connected with the process of manufacture. Office equipment such as fans, coolers, air-conditioning units, would not be admissible to special rates under Sec.8 (1 ). Keeping in view the above observations of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the lamps, which are used for the purpose of lighting various plants in the works (but not the lamps which are used for lighting the office and other places), ought to be included in the certificate of registration under Sec.6a of the Act. 7. With regard to items Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10, in the absence of any counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, I am inclined to accept the affidavit filed on behalf of the company regarding the use of those items of goods. 7. With regard to items Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10, in the absence of any counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, I am inclined to accept the affidavit filed on behalf of the company regarding the use of those items of goods. Keeping in view the wide interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above, of the expression "goods intended for use in the manufacture and processing of goods for sale" in the Central Act, I am of the opinion that items Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 ought to have been also included in the certificate of registration under Sec.6a of the Act. 8. For the reasons stated above, I allow this application in part and quash the order of the learned Commissioner (annexure 8) with regard to items Nos.1 and 3 to 10 of the list as mentioned in paragraph 28 of the application and direct the sales tax authorities to include those nine items of goods in the registration certificate of the company under Sec.6a of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.