ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) stated the case and referred the undaunted two questions, categorised as of law, on reference Nos. 41-III of 1987 and 42-III of 1987 against the order dated February 28, 1987 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case Nos. 329-PBR of 1985 (State) and 328-III of 1985 (Central) respectively. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was correct in holding that the audit report was merely information received by the assessing officer and not an opinion to be adopted by him; and whether the realisation that the process of drawing wires from wire rods was a process of manufacture, provided him the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ? (b) Whether, the Board of Revenue was right in law in holding that the process undertaken by the applicant had resulted in the manufacture of a different commercial product notwithstanding the provision of section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Ace under which wire rods and wires are categorised together as a single item in item No. (xv) ? 2. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The assessee deals in metal wires and electric conductors. It was assessed to State and Central tax separately on December 15, 1980. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and vide two separate orders passed on May 16, 1984 its assessment was revised and penalties were imposed in both the cases. The assessee filed appeals which were rejected. It then, filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the appeals and thus, fortune did not fluctuate for it. Thereafter, the assessee filed the applications under section 44(1) of the aforesaid Act on which the Tribunal stated the case and referred for our opinion the aforesaid two questions. Process was held to be one of manufacture. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia for the applicant and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate, for the non-applicant. 4. Process was held to be one of manufacture. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia for the applicant and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate, for the non-applicant. 4. The question for consideration is whether the process of heating, annealing, picking of wire rods and drawing wires of different diameters thereafter was or was not a process of manufacture producing a different commercial product. It is noticeable that wire rods and wires rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated such as copper are grouped in one category (xv) of section 14(iv) of the Central Act. 5. Section 2(j) of the Act substituted and deemed to have come into force with effect from April 1, 1959 vide Act No. 10 of 1970, provides that "manufacture includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods". The question is whether by the process as stated in goods were produced or made. Under the Sales Tax Act, wires are considered as integral part of rods and not distinct from rods. Once wire rods suffered sales tax, in our view, sales tax again cannot be realised on wires produced from the wire rods. Irrefragably, it should be a single point tax. 6. The counsel for the applicant placed reliance on [1994] 93 STC 187 (SC) (Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh). In this case, the apex Court held as under : "We, therefore, conclude by stating that iron wires cannot be taken as a separate taxable commodity and, if wire rods which were purchased by the appellants had suffered sales tax, the same could not be realised from the sale of wires. Shri Lahoty indeed brought to our notice Notifications Nos. I and II issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms. No. 176 dated February 13, 1986 as per which sale of wires was exempted from sales tax starting from April 1, 1976 if the wire rods used by the wire drawing units in the State for manufacture of wire had been subjected to tax under the State Act." 7. It is not contended before us that wire rods purchased by the assessee had not suffered the sales tax. That being so, there is no question of double taxation, on the ground of assumed manufacture. It is not contended before us that wire rods purchased by the assessee had not suffered the sales tax. That being so, there is no question of double taxation, on the ground of assumed manufacture. In our view, different commercial products is not yielded from the aforesaid activity. 8. Once we hold that the process had not resulted in the manufacture of different commercial product, we find that there was no justification or jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act on the basis of audit report. The report could furnish no cause. A different interpretation is not enough. The authority was required to show that sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax was under-assessed or had escaped assessment or was assessed at a lower rate. That is not the case here. 9. In our view, the aforesaid decision in the case of Telangana Steel Industries [1994] 93 STC 187 (SC) concludes and clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. The Government Advocate has nothing to submit to the contrary. 10. Exconsequenti, we answer the aforesaid questions in negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11. This miscellaneous civil case thus, stands decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 12. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary under the law. Reference answered in the negative.