JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - Both these writ petitions have been referred by the learned Single Judge for disposal looking to the importance of the question of law as to what is the effect of section 15(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "Act of 1956") on the corresponding provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "Act of 1958"). 2. For convenient disposal of both these petitions, facts given in M.P. No. 8 of 1986 - Khandelwal Dal Mill v. Sales Tax Officer, Durg are taken into consideration. The petitioner has prayed for declaration that conversion of whole pulses into split pulses did not amount to a process of manufacture. It is prayed that no purchase tax could be levied under section 7(2) of the Act of 1958 and that the rate of tax could at the most be 2.5 per cent on the purchases effected by the petitioner from unregistered dealers. 3. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of pulses and is registered as a dealer under the Act of 1958. The petitioner holds Registration Certificate No. DRG/2954. The assessment year involved in the present case is from November 1, 1978 to October 21, 1979. The petitioner was assessed to purchase tax under section 7(2) of the Act of 1958 on an amount of Rs. 2,12,000 at the rat of 4 per cent, and the tax amounted to Rs. 8,480. This was done on the ground that the whole pulses were purchased by the petitioner from unregistered dealers and they were utilised in the manufacture of split pulses. It was submitted before the respondent No. 1 at the time of assessment that the whole pulses purchased by the petitioner from unregistered dealers could be subjected tax at the most at 2.5 per cent in terms of the notification dated March 31, 1979 as they were nothing but cereals within the meaning of section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. This contention was negatived and the petitioner was assessed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 2 under section 39(1) of the Act on the ground that the purchase tax should not have been levied on whole pulses and it was illegal and the quantum of rate of tax at 4 per cent was not proper. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 2 under section 39(1) of the Act on the ground that the purchase tax should not have been levied on whole pulses and it was illegal and the quantum of rate of tax at 4 per cent was not proper. The revisional authority by order dated August 3, 1985 allowed the revision in part, but so far as the question of imposition of purchase tax and its quantum was concerned, it was rejected. Copy of order passed by respondent No. 2 in revision is on record as annexure D. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the instant petition and has submitted that in terms of section 15(d) of the Act of 1956, the assessee is not liable to pay purchase tax. Shri B. L. Nema, learned counsel for the assessee/petitioner has strenuously urged before us that section 15(d) of the Act of 1956 imposes a restriction on the competence of the State Legislature to levy the sales tax or purchase tax on the goods declared by the Parliament under section 14(vi-a) of the Act of 1956 and therefore the petitioner was not liable to pay purchase tax. 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we would like to refer to section 7 of the Act of 1958, which reads as under : "7. Levy of purchase tax. - (1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any goods specified in Schedule II - (i) from a registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 is payable by that registered dealer on the sale price of such goods; or (ii) from any other person; shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods, if after such purchase the goods are not sold either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce but are - (a) sold or disposed of otherwise; or (b) used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods or used or consumed otherwise; such tax shall be levied at the same rate at which tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 would have been levied on the sale of such goods within the State on the date of such purchase. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, the tax under sub-section (1) payable by a registered dealer on the goods, other than tendu leaves, opium including raw opium and whole pulses, purchased by him for consumption or use as raw material or incidental goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the mining of goods or in the generation of distribution of electricity or any other form of power shall be charged at the concessional rate of 4 per cent : Provided that when the tax payable under sub-section (1) on the purchase of such raw material or incidental goods is at a rate lower than 4 per cent, the tax payable under this sub-section be calculated at such lower rate or at such lower rate as may be notified by the State Government. (3) No tax under this section shall be levied in respect of any year on - (a) a dealer other than a dealer referred to in clause (d), not liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 if the aggregate of purchase prices of all goods in that year does not exceed the limits specified in sub-section (5) of section 4; (b) a dealer holding a licence under section 13 in respect of raw materials and incidental goods used in that year in the manufacture of goods in respect of which he holds such licence; (c) a dealer in respect of the purchase price of paddy, unginned cotton as specified in Part I of Schedule II and such other goods in the said Part as the State Government may from time to time, by notification, specify who has consumed or used them as raw materials for the manufacture of other goods and the goods so manufactured are sold in the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; (d) any other dealer who has no turnover, if the aggregate of purchase prices of all the goods does not exceed twenty thousand rupees. (4) Every dealer who has no turnover and is liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of sections 17, 18, 19, 22, 22-A and 26, be deemed to be a registered dealer." Section 15(d) of the Act of 1956 with which we are concerned reads as under : "15. Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. - Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely : (d) each of the pulses referred to in clause (vi-a) of section 14, whether whole or separated, and whether with or without husk, shall be treated as a single commodity for the purposes of levy of tax under that law." 6. Section 14 of the Act of 1956 says that certain goods are to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Clause (vi-a) there in talks of pulses, that is to say - gram or gulab gram; tur or arhar; moong or green gram; masur or lentil, urad or black gram; moth, lakh or khesari. So far as levy of sales tax is concerned, it is within the competence of the State Legislature under entry No. 54 of the Second List of Schedule VII. But article 286(3) of the Constitution says - "Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, - (a) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce; or (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods, being a tax of the nature referred to in sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (29A) of article 366, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rated and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may be law specify." In exercise of this power, the Parliament has specified certain goods under section 14 of the Act of 1956 to be the goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. In the present case, we are only concerned with item (vi-a) of section 14 which deals with pulses; and for that, restriction has been laid down in section 15(d) of the Act of 1956 that each of the pulses referred to in clause (vi-a) of section 14, whether whole or separated, and whether with or without husk, shall be treated as a single commodity for the purposes for the purposes of levy of tax under that law. Thus, the pulses of different kinds are to be treated as goods of special importance as laid down by the Parliament and such condition will have to be read in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 7. A similar question came up before the honourable Supreme Court wherein the validity of enactment was challenged and their Lordships have upheld the power of the Parliament in the case of Rajasthan Roller Four Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 91 STC 408 (SC); AIR 1994 SC 64 . It is observed : "........ We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the States that the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Act, being restrictions upon the plenary powers of the State Legislatures to levy tax on sale/purchase of goods must be construed strictly. In other words, the restriction must be limited to the goods expressly mentioned and nothing more must be read into it except what it says clearly. This is the view taken by the Constitution Bench of this Court in a somewhat similar situation in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1980) 4 SCC 136 ; AIR 1980 SC 1955 to which we shall presently refer." The power of State Legislature is circumscribed by section 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 8. Now the question before us is whether under section 7(2) of the Act of 1958, goods can be subjected to the purchase tax or not. 8. Now the question before us is whether under section 7(2) of the Act of 1958, goods can be subjected to the purchase tax or not. Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958 says that every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any goods specified in Schedule II from a registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 is payable by that registered dealer on the sale price of such goods, or from any other person, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods, if after such purchase the goods are not sold either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce but are sold or disposed of otherwise, used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods or used or consumed otherwise, then such tax shall be levied at the same rate at which tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 would have been levied on the sale of such goods within the State on the date of such purchase. The result is that so far as dal pulses are concerned, even if it is split, then for the purpose of taxing event, it would be treated as one item and not two. 9. Though this Court in the case of Chandrabhan Brijmohan and Co. v. D. K. Verma, Addl. Asstt. Commissioner of S.T., Jabalpur (1981) MPLJ 21 has taken the view that splitting of pulses involves a manufacturing process. An amendment was brought about in Central Sales Tax Act on September 7, 1976 and clauses (c) and (d) were inserted in section 15. That shows that so far as pulses are concerned, even if they are split, then too, they would be treated as one item and it cannot be subjected to tax for the second time, as for all purpose, they would be a single commodity. That shows that so far as pulses are concerned, even if they are split, then too, they would be treated as one item and it cannot be subjected to tax for the second time, as for all purpose, they would be a single commodity. Reverting back to section 7(2) of the Act of 1958, it is provided therein that a dealer who has purchased goods either from registered dealer or unregistered dealer and the goods has not suffered the tax, in that event he shall be liable to pay purchase tax, if he has not sold that purchased goods either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce but sold or disposed of otherwise or used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods or used or consumed otherwise. What in conveys is that such a purchasing dealer will have to pay tax if the goods are not sold or disposed of or, it has been used in the manufacturing process or consumed therein. But nonetheless, he will have to pay tax at one point of time. As far as pulses are concerned, position cannot be said to be the same. So far as processing is concerned, even if pulses are split, technically it may amount to manufacture but looking to the provision of section 15(d) of the Act of 1956, they will be treated one item and cannot be subjected to purchase tax. As the special treatment has been given to these pulses by the Parliament in order to check the double taxation, i.e., sales tax as well as purchase tax, they have been treated fictionally as one item irrespective of the fact that on splitting the same, they lose identity of original commodity. 10. As regards levy of purchase tax, under section 7(1), the commodity cannot be subjected to purchase tax as it has to be treated to be one commodity as a whole and split pulse cannot be termed as a new commodity. So far as section 7(1)(b) of the Act of 1958 is concerned, no purchase tax can be levied on pulses. We do not want to express any opinion on section 7(1)(a) of the Act of 1958 as that is not the case before us. So far as section 7(1)(b) of the Act of 1958 is concerned, no purchase tax can be levied on pulses. We do not want to express any opinion on section 7(1)(a) of the Act of 1958 as that is not the case before us. In this connection, our attention is invited to the notification issued by the State Government in which payment of sales tax has been totally exempted by notification dated October 1, 1978 which says that sale of products and by-products of whole pulses, such as separated pulses, began and chuni have been exempted under section 6 of the Act of 1958. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, in view of section 15(d) of the Act of 1956, no purchase tax under section 7(1)(b) can be levied on any pulses which may have been used or consumed in the manufacture of other goods by the assessee. 11. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. Authorities may examine the tax liability in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions allowed.