JUDGMENT G. B. PATNAIK, J. - These two writ applications related to assessments made in respect of two different assessment years, O.J.C. No. 281 of 1980 having been filed against the assessment made in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 and O.J.C. No. 282 of 1980 having been filed in respect of the assessment year 1977-78. Since common question of law is involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner who is a registered who is a registered dealer purchased iron and steel called scrap iron and undertook manufacturing operations in its own re-rolling mill and produced M.S. rods, M.S. bars and M.S. rounds, etc., and sold the same outside Orissa. He also sold the scrap iron to different registered and unregistered dealers. Pursuant to notice issued under section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act") and on examining the account books of the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer found that during the assessment year 1977-78, the petitioner had utilised raw materials worth Rs. 22,10,621.60 in manufacturing by process of re-rolling M.S bars, M.S. rounds and M.S. plates and during the assessment year 1978-79 similarly he has utilised the scrap iron purchased by him to the tune of Rs. 22,10,621.60 in producing M.S. bars, M.S rounds and M.S. plates. The petitioner purchased the scrap iron by furnishing declarations in form No. XXXIV for the purpose of resale in Orissa. The assessing officer has come to the conclusion that the utilisation of the scrap iron for manufacturing M.S. rods, M.S. Plates and M.S. bars and thereafter selling the finished products constitutes violation of the declaration made in form No. XXXIV thereby attracting the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the value of the scrap iron purchased has to be added back to the taxable turnover of the dealer in accordance with the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the assessing officer has concluded the assessment proceeding and has amended a further sum from the petitioner. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the assessing officer has concluded the assessment proceeding and has amended a further sum from the petitioner. Though in the writ petitions several points have been taken and several prayers have been made including the prayer to strike down section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act, but at the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner only contends that there has been no violation of the declaration given by the petitioner in form No. XXXIV since the petitioner had purchased the iron and steel by furnishing the declaration and also sold the iron and steel and, therefore, there was no violation of the declaration given by the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner is based on the enumeration of iron and steel in entry No. 46 of the notification issued under section 5(1) of the Act prescribing different rates of sales tax payable by a dealer on account of sales tax as specified in column No. (2) of the Schedule in question. In the said entry steel bars (rounds, rods, squares, flats, octagons and hexagons, plain and ribbed or twisted, in coil form as well as straight lengths) are all included within the item iron and steel. This question came up for consideration recently before this Court in a batch of writ applications in O.J.C. Nos. 518, 519 and 973 of 1979 disposed of on 24th July, 1987 (Konark Steel Industries v. Sales Tax Officer [1988] 69 STC 187). This Court has held by referring to the entry No. 46 referred to earlier that where a dealer purchases scrap iron by giving a declaration in form No. XXXIV and utilises the same as raw materials for manufacturing M.S. rods, M.S. bars and M.S. plates and sells the same, he does not commit any breach of the declaration given by him in form No. XXXIV and therefore, the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act cannot be attracted. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, we must hold that the assessing officer committed an error in applying the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act and adding the value of the purchased scrap iron to the taxable turnover of the petitioner. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, we must hold that the assessing officer committed an error in applying the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act and adding the value of the purchased scrap iron to the taxable turnover of the petitioner. We would accordingly quash the impugned assessment in question as per annexure 1 in both these writ applications and the assessing officer is directed to make fresh assessment in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by us in this judgment. 3. Both these writ applications are accordingly allowed. V. GOPALASWAMY, J. - I agree. Writ applications allowed.