JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - Petitioner, by this petition, has prayed that the order dated August 9, 1988 (annexure F) amending the certificate of registration of the petitioner may be quashed and the State Level Committee may be directed to delete the words "excluding major oil-seeds" from conditions Nos. 4 and 5(d) of the eligibility certificate. It is also prayed that the reassessment orders (annexures H-1 and H-2) may be quashed. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as ultra vires. It is also prayed that the orders of assessment and demand of Rs. 1,37,05,311, created by the respondent No. 4 be quashed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a manufacturer and holds registration certificate bearing No. KGO/MHS/1888 under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") as well as No. KGO/MHS/646 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is the owner of the solvent extraction plant. In this plant, oil is extracted by chemical process from oil-seeds and oil cakes. Petitioner started commencement of production from June 15, 1983. The industry has been established in the backward area and is entitled to exemption from sales tax under notifications dated October 23, 1981 and June 29, 1982. He is also entitled to exemption from entry tax under the Entry Tax Act. 3. The petitioner, being the industry because of the notification of the Government (annexure A-1), is entitled to exemption of sales tax for a period of 9 years, as it falls in category "C" of that notification, because it is situated in Khargone. Certificate of registration was issued by the sales tax department in which all the raw material, viz., all kinds of oil-seeds, was mentioned. It is alleged that by virtue of the certificate, the petitioner is entitled to purchase raw material, viz., all kind of oil-seeds without payment of sales tax. Thereafter, eligibility certificate was issued by respondent No. 2, the State Level Committee, Department of Commerce and Industries. In condition No. 5(d), it has been mentioned that oil-seeds having high oil contents will not be allowed as a raw material. Thereafter, eligibility certificate was issued by respondent No. 2, the State Level Committee, Department of Commerce and Industries. In condition No. 5(d), it has been mentioned that oil-seeds having high oil contents will not be allowed as a raw material. It is pointed out that the notifications only mention that the petitioner is exempted from payment of tax which means that he cannot be subjected to tax on purchases or sales effected by him under sections 6 and 7 of the Act. Likewise, exemption from payment of entry tax is claimed. It is pointed out that the State Level Committee has decided that all major oil-seeds will not be exempted from tax. According to the petitioner, the decision of the State Level Committee to the effect "all kinds of oil-seeds" is not correct and is beyond the scope of the exemption notification. The petitioner protested before the Sales Tax Officer that the notification does not lay down any condition as to what type of oil-seeds are included as raw material. It is also contended that classifying oil-seeds into low oil content and high oil content is not permitted by the notification and the action taken by the State Level Committee is not correct. The petitioner has challenged the amendment to the certificate of registration which was granted by the sales tax department and the order dated August 9, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (annexure F). For the period August 8, 1983 to September 30, 1983, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by order dated December 2, 1985 (annexure G) and certain demands have been raised as per annexures H-1 and H-2. Thereafter, the petitioner was also issued a notice under section 19(1) of the Act for reassessment of tax liability as per annexure L. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition. He has also challenged proviso (a) to sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Act being ultra vires, as it does not lay down any period of limitation and still reassessment could be made within two years. 4. So far as the validity of proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act is concerned, the same has already been declared ultra vires by this Court in case of Adarsh General Stores v. Sales Tax Officer, Satna [1999] 113 STC 373; (1997) 30 VKN 9 . 4. So far as the validity of proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act is concerned, the same has already been declared ultra vires by this Court in case of Adarsh General Stores v. Sales Tax Officer, Satna [1999] 113 STC 373; (1997) 30 VKN 9 . Therefore, we need not go into that question. 5. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically challenged the expression "excluding major oil-seeds" appearing in conditions Nos. 4 and 5(d) of the eligibility conditions and it is contended that it is beyond the scope of the exemption notification (annexure A-1). It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was granted registration certificate by the sales tax department on August 8, 1983 (annexure F) in which no condition was laid down and it has been mentioned that the petitioner is registered as a manufacturer of oil from oil-seeds. No distinction in this certificate was made of major oil-seeds or minor oil-seeds. Notification A-1 which is the basic notification for grant of exemption, reads as under : "Notification relating to exemption and deferment of payment of tax under M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 F. No. A3-41-81 (35)-ST-V dated the 23rd October, 1981. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), the State Government hereby exempts the class of dealers specified in column (1) of the Schedule below who have set up industry in any of the district of Madhya Pradesh specified in the annexure to this notification and have commenced production after 1st April, 1981, from payment of tax under the said Act for the period specified in column (2), subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in column (3) of the said schedule :- SCHEDULE Class of dealers Period Restrictions and conditions subject to which exemption has been granted (1) (2) (3) 1. Dealers who - (a) hold certificate of Two years from the The dealer specified in registration under the date of commencement column (1) shall continue Madhya Pradesh of production. Dealers who - (a) hold certificate of Two years from the The dealer specified in registration under the date of commencement column (1) shall continue Madhya Pradesh of production. to furnish the prescribed General Sales Tax returns under the Madhya Act, 1958 Pradesh General Sales (No. 2 of Tax Act, 1959); 1958, and shall produce before the assessing (b) are registered as authority at the small-scale time of his industrial units with the assessment a Industries Department certified issued of, the Government by the Director of Madhya Prades; and of Industries, Madhya Pradesh, or any officer authorised by him for the purpose, certifying that such dealer is eligible to claim the exemption (c) have set up industry and that he has in any of the not opted for districts specified in the scheme of Part 1 of the deferring the payment annexure. of tax under the rules framed for this purpose. 2. .................... 3. Dealers who - (a) hold certificate of (a) 3 years, in The dealer specified incolumn registration under the case of an (1) shall produce before the the Madhya Pradesh industry located assessing authority at the time General Sales Tax in any of the of his assessment a certificate Act, 1958 (No. 2 of tahsils of a issued by the 1959). Director of district speci- industries, Madhya Pradesh, or (b) are registered as in- fied in part 1 any officer authorised by him for the dustrial units with of the purpose, certifying that the Director-General annexure; the dealer is eligible to claim of Technical Devel- (b) 5 years, in the such exemption under the scheme of opment or by any case of an the Industries authority duly industry locat- Department being the first empowered to do ed in any of dealer to have commenced so by the State or the tahsils of a production in the industry set Central Government district speci- up by him in the tahsils or hold licence fied in category referred to in column (2) and under the Industries 'A' of Part II that such dealer has not opted for the scheme (Development and of the of deferring the Regulation) Act, annexure; payment of tax under the rules 1951 (No. 65 of (c) 7 years, in the framed for this purpose." 1951), have fixed a case of an capital investment industry located between Rs. 1 crore in any of the and Rs. 1 crore in any of the and Rs. 10 crores; tahsils of a and district specified in category 'B' of Part II (c) are the first to set of the annexure; and up the industry in (d) 9 years, in the any tahsil of the case of an district of Madhya industry located in Pradesh specified any of the tahsils of a in the annexure. district specified in category 'C' of Part II of the annexure, from the date of com- mencement of production. Eligibility Certificate was also issued by the Director of Industries on November 2, 1985 (annexure B-1) and January 6, 1984 (annexure B-2). In this eligibility certificate, condition No. 4 was imposed which reads as under : "4. The dealer is registered/licensed for the manufacture of the following items. The particulars of the raw materials required are also noted against the items :- Item of manufacture Capacity Raw materials/incidental goods Vegetable oil by 15,000 M.T. Oil-seeds (excluding major solvent extraction in terms of oil-seeds), oil cakes, process soyabean rexene, bleaching earth caustic soda, soda ash, activated carbon, common salt, nickel ......... hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, steam coal, firewood, all types of husky .......... oil, petrol, ab, spirit, alcohol, lubricants. .........................." 6. It may also be relevant to mention that the State Government, in its reply, has pointed out that the petitioner is essentially a soya bean extracting plant and brought annexure R-3, the certificate issued by the Director-General of Technical Development, Oils Division, New Delhi, dated May 4, 1981, in which the petitioner has been registered as a vegetable oil manufacturer by solvent extraction process at Khargone and it was clearly mentioned that "subject to the condition, the unit will not be permitted to use major oil-seeds either by expellers or by solvent extraction process for manufacture of vegetable oils". It is also mentioned that the capacity proposed to be established is 15,000 M.T. per annum in terms of soya bean. Therefore, from this certificate, it appears that the petitioner's unit has been registered as a soya bean extracting plant and it has been clearly mentioned that they may not be permitted to use major oil-seeds either by expellers or by solvent extraction process. In this background, we have to examine the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Therefore, from this certificate, it appears that the petitioner's unit has been registered as a soya bean extracting plant and it has been clearly mentioned that they may not be permitted to use major oil-seeds either by expellers or by solvent extraction process. In this background, we have to examine the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the classification mentioned in annexure A-1 runs counter to the main notification issued by the State Government under section 12 of the Act, granting the exemption and, therefore, this condition that the petitioner will not be entitled to use major oil-seeds runs counter to the policy decision and is beyond the scope of the notification. In this connection, learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. G. S. Dall and Flour Mills [1991] 80 STC 138 (SC). We need not go into the question whether excluding major oil-seeds, the condition mentioned by the Industries Department in the eligibility certificate (annexure B-1) is beyond the Notification (annexure A-1), issued under section 12 of the Act or not for the simple reason that the petitioner is essentially a soya bean extracting plant and it does not consume major oil-seeds. The petitioner has been granted eligibility certificate (annexure B-1), which is in consonance with annexure R-3. In this certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner can use oil-seeds, oil cakes and all other items with which we are not concerned, but the fact remains that soya bean are not major oil-seeds. The major oil-seeds which have been categorised, are as per the recognition of the State Level Committee (annexure R-3). According to the experts, the oil-seeds having high oil content, are groundnuts, Mahua seeds, etc. The petitioner does not consume high oil content seeds like groundnuts and Mahua seeds, but is essentially a soya bean extracting plant which does not fall in the category of major oils. Therefore, we need not go into the controversy of enquiring into the certificate of registration of the petitioner permitting him to use major oil seeds or not, as it has no relevance so far as this case is concerned. 8. The petitioner is a soya bean extracting plant which is not included in the category of high level seeds category. Therefore, we need not go into the controversy of enquiring into the certificate of registration of the petitioner permitting him to use major oil seeds or not, as it has no relevance so far as this case is concerned. 8. The petitioner is a soya bean extracting plant which is not included in the category of high level seeds category. The petitioner is a soya bean extracting plant of low oil content and that has been certified by the Industries Department but in the certificate which was issued by the Sales Tax Department on March 18, 1983, no condition was laid down which has now been rectified by annexure F, dated August 9, 1988 and that has been brought in line with the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on November 2, 1985 by the Industries Department. Therefore, this correction made by the Industries Department also does not suffer from any illegality. 9. To conclude the matter, soya bean does not fall in the category of major oil-seeds. As such, we need not go into the academic question whether such condition laid-down in the certificate of eligibility issued by the Industries Department on November 2, 1985 goes beyond the notification dated October 23, 1981 so far as this case is concerned. 10. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. S. Dall and Flour Mills' case [1991] 80 STC 138. In that case, their Lordships have laid down that the executive instructions can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend. They cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. So far as this proposition is concerned, there cannot be two opinions in the matter. But the above decision has hardly any relevance to the present case. It would be purely an academic question to examine whether the condition laid down in the certificate that major oil-seeds are excluded, runs counter to the eligibility certificate, so far as this case is concerned. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. Proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act is declared ultra vires for the reasons mentioned above. Rest of the petition is dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed in part.