JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have by this petition prayed that circular dated January 10, 1996 (annexure P-2), may be held to be ultra vires and order dated August 7, 1996 (annexure P-4), dated August 8, 1996 (annexure P-5) issued by respondent No. 5 and order dated August 9, 1996 (annexure P-7), issued by respondent No. 6 may be quashed. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents may be directed to cancel Form No. 27C issued by them. 2. The petitioners are carrying on the business of tendu leaves popularly known as bidi leaves. The petitioners were assessed to income-tax, Tendu leaves are natural forest produce which are available in abundance in the States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar and other States, All the State Governments have nationalised the trade in this commodity. It is alleged that the general features of trade in tendu leaves consist of the purchase of tendu forest units from the State Governments and, thereafter, by processing the same, they are being marketed. The business of processing of tendu leaves comprises obtaining the rights of collection and purchase of raw tendu leaves from the concerned forest department. There are other processes undertaken, like collection of tendu leaves, pruning, prevention of diseases, plucking of green leaves, arrangements of pudas at collection centres, drying the same by solar energy, classification/gradation of bidi leaves, putting them in the bags and, thereafter, their transportation. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to processing. Therefore, it is contended that a certificate in Form No. 27C should be issued. The respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh, has declined to grant certificate on the condition that this procedure does not amount to "processing" within the meaning of Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. A somewhat similar question came up before us in Writ Petition No. 3022 of 1995--Chhatisgarh Bidi Leaves Merchants Association v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 163 (MP) and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in the case of Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 656, and another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chowgule and Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124, we have taken the view that this procedure does not amount to process. P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124, we have taken the view that this procedure does not amount to process. It was observed after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court (page 166) : "Therefore, after examining the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment, it is more than evident that tendu patta does not undergo any processing except sprinkling of water so as to avoid breaking of leaves and sorting of leaves which are of poor quality. Thereafter, the leaves are packed and dried from both sides. After processing and drying, the bundles are collected and kept in heaps. After this, it is examined whether the dried leaves are soft enough for the manufacturing of bidis. If they are not so soft, then again water is sprinkled on these heaps of bundles so that the brittleness of the leaves goes away. After sprinkling of water again the leaves are dried for two-three days. After this process, soft dry leaves are obtained. It is to keep some moisture in the leaves so that they may be useful-for manufacture of bidis. This process does not amount to the real sense of the word 'processing' as nothing emerges from this . . ." 4. We have taken the view that the procedure does not amount to "processing" as nothing new emerges from this and we dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel has now brought our attention to the decision of this court given in the case of CSTv. Purshottamdas Somabhai [1980] 13 VKN 1, wherein a Division Bench of this court has found that this is a processing. But then the Supreme Court in Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 191 ITR 656 has taken the different view. Therefore, the decision in Purshottamdas Somabhai [1980] 13 VKN 1 is no more good law. 6. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in other States, like--Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar, this process of collection and pruning of tendu leaves has been treated to be "processing". Therefore, the decision in Purshottamdas Somabhai [1980] 13 VKN 1 is no more good law. 6. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in other States, like--Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar, this process of collection and pruning of tendu leaves has been treated to be "processing". That may be so ; but so far as this State is concerned, after the decision of this court in W. P. No. 3022 of 1995 (Chhatisgarh Bidi Leaves Merchants Association v. Union of India [1998] 250 ITR 165 (MP) and in the case of Abdul Sattar v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 163 (MP), we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.