MOTILAL B. NAIL, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Special Appeals are directed against the common order dated 7. 1. 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in proceedings No. L. III (3) /185/94-1 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. ( 2 ) THE appellant-M/s. Kalyani Roller eour Mills (P) Limited, Guntakal was finally assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, guntakal on gross and net turnover of rs. 3,00,47,065/- and Rs. 1,66,06,980/- respectively for the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 2,54,57,027/- and Rs. 57,32,829/- respectively for the assessment year 1991-92. The Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the first sale of wheat and wheat products and the sale of atta by the assessee. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, the assessee preferred appeals before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), kurnool. The Appellate Deputy commissioner partly allowed the appeals. Against the orders of the Appellate Deputy commissioner, Revision under Section 20 (1) of the APGST Act (for short the Act ) was filed before the Commissioner, Commercial taxes. The appellant-assessee filed written objections to the proposed revision and submitted that the exemption granted through G. O. Ms. No. 377 applies to sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by roller Flour Mills which are not of their own manufacture. The Commissioner examined the order of the Appellate deputy Commissioner with reference to law and it was concluded that the interpretation of the G. O. Ms. No. 377 dated 2. 5. 1991 is not in true sense of the said G. O. The commissioner having regard to the background of the issuance of the G. O, which was issued on the basis of the representation made to the Government by the Millers Association, was of the view that the concession granted by the Appellate deputy Commissioner was not justified inasmuch the Roller Flour Mills purchase the wheat from the Food Corporation of india and sell it to the consumers or dealers and that the exemption would not cover as long as the process of grinding is not undertaken by these appellants. While holding so, the concession granted was withdrawn and revisional orders were passed. It is this common order of the Commissioner is now challenged in these two appeals on various grounds. While holding so, the concession granted was withdrawn and revisional orders were passed. It is this common order of the Commissioner is now challenged in these two appeals on various grounds. ( 4 ) SRI S. R. Ashok, learned Senior counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in granting exemption inasmuch as the object of issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 377 dated 2. 5. 1991 is primarily to assist the roller Flour Mills which had a bad period and that on the basis of the representation made to the Government, the Government granted exemption from payment of sales tax and therefore it has to be treated as a general exemption and pleaded that the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the orders of the Appellate Deputy commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 20 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel taking us to the G. O. Ms. No. 377 and Section 9 of the Act pleaded that the government have powers either to reduce or increase the rate of tax and therefore the G. O. Ms. No. 377 is issued invoking the powers under Section 9 of the Act as the government desired that the benefit has to be extended to all the units of this nature. The learned Counsel also cited a decision of this Court in Anandi Roller Flour Mills limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (2001) 122 STC 597 and stated that the division Bench of this Court has examined the intricacies of the said G. O and held that the view taken by the Government supports the stand of the appellant and pleaded to allow the appeals. ( 5 ) ON the contrary the learned government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents stated that the historical background for issuing the G. O Ms. No. 377 is only to help such of those units which undertake grinding activity and that though these appellants purchase the wheat from the Food Corporation of India, they undertake the activity of only selling the wheat directly either to dealer or consumer, as such no exemption need to be given to them inasmuch as the activity undertaken by the appellants is like the activity undertaken by any other dealer and as such the said exemption would not have been granted by the Government. The learned Government Pleader also brought to our notice the historical background for issuing the G. O and stated that the intention of the Government is only to grant exemption to such of those Roller flour Mills which undertake not only the activity of purchasing the wheat but also grinding the wheat and therefore in the absence of the appellants undertaking the process of grinding the wheat, they are not entitled for any exemption. In support of his contentions, the learned Government pleader also took us to the decisions in Roxy roller Flour Pvt. Limited and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1994) 18 APSTJ 139 and Panyam Cements and Mineral Industries Limited, Cement nagar, Kurnool District v. State of Andhra pradesh, (1995) 21 APSTJ 197 and also placed the representation made by the president of the A. P. Roller Flour Mills association to the Government and stated that the representation of the Association would invariably go to show that they sought the benefit for grinding activity that would be undertaken by the individual millers. Learned Government Pleader also stated that the intention of the Government need not be understood to say that the Millers have been granted general exemption. Learned Government Pleader while referring to the decision in Roxy Roller s case stated that the Division Bench of this Court observed that the concession obtained under G. O. Ms. No. 377 was only by misrepresentation and that finding itself goes against the appellants and therefore stated that it is a fit case to dismiss the appeals. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised before us, we shall now examine the G. O. Ms. No. 377 dated 2. 5. 1991 and the historical background for issuing the G. O. 377. G. O. Ms. No. 377, Revenue, (CT-II), dated 2. 5. 1991 reads thus:"in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. VI of 1957), the governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from levy of tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the Roller Flour mills within the State for a period of five years with effect on and from the date of publication of this notification in the Andhra pradesh Gazette". The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the language used in the beneficial G. O and states that the Government intended to help the Roller Flour Mills who sold wheat or wheat products within the State. There cannot be any different interpretation while understanding the implications arising out of the G. O. As indicated by us, in order to know the historical background, we have summoned the relevant records relating to issuance of the G. O and the representation to the Government made by the Association of the Roller Flour Mills, which prompted the Government to issue the said G. O. The a. P. Roller Flour Mills Association sent a representation to the Chief Minister of andhra Pradesh on 25. 10. 1988 requesting to exempt the sales tax on wheat products. At page 7 of the representation, the association pleaded in its prayer portion as under: "removal of Sales Tax on wheat obtained by roller Flour Mills for grinding in their mills in order to restore parity with the neighbouring states". A reading of this relief sought by the Roller flour Mills would go to show that the benefit was sought by the Roller Flour Mills which undertake the process of grinding. In other words if the grinding process is not necessary, the Roller Flour Mills need not ask for any exemption at all. In our considered view, if wheat is to be purchased or sold or Atta or Rawa is to be purchased or sold by a particular person or a firm then it has to be treated as a dealer as provided under Section 2 (l) (e) of the Act. When special exemption is sought for through a representation on the premise that the neighbouring States granting exemption for the Flour Mills involving in the activity of selling or purchasing of wheat or wheat products and that as a result of which there is every likelihood of the Mills being closed down, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acting upon the said representation issued the said G. O. It is pertinent to mention here that after realizing that the said G. O was obtained by playing fraud on the government, another G. O 561 dated 26. 3. 1993 was issued by the Government withdrawing the earlier G. O. Ms. No. 377 dated 2. 5. 1991. 3. 1993 was issued by the Government withdrawing the earlier G. O. Ms. No. 377 dated 2. 5. 1991. Questioning the withdrawal of the said G. O, batch of writ petitions were filed by similarly placed persons before this court and the Division Bench of this Court in Roxy Roller s case observed at page 142 of its judgment that the very rescinded G. O. is the resultant of misrepresentation of facts by the Roller Flour Mills Association that in the neighbouring States there was no sales tax on wheat and wheat products. The Bench further observed "however, in truth, except in the State of Maharashtra and Gujarath, in other adjoining States including Karnataka, there was levy of sales tax. In this background of factual position, particularly when the exemption was obtained on misrepresentation, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be taken recourse of In the above judgment, an argument was advanced on behalf of the Millers association that on the basis of exemption granted by the Government from payment of sales tax, new Flour Mills have been established or the old Flour Mills have been expanded and undertook to meet the new responsibility and that therefore the withdrawal of the G. O amounts to promissory estoppel and that the Government cannot withdraw the said G. O. Meeting the said argument, the Division Bench observed that since the benefit itself was obtained by misrepresentation, the Government was justified in withdrawing the benefits granted by it. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, these appellants are also claiming benefit under G. O. Ms. No. 377 which has been tested by the Division Bench in the Roxy Roller s case. In Roxy Roller s case, the Division Bench has categorically held that the G. O was issued on the basis of misrepresentation made by the Association and therefore the Government is justified in withdrawing the same by issuing another g. O. Ms. No. 561 dated 26. 3. 1993. It could be said that a concession obtained by fraud or misrepresentation cannot be extended for indefinite period and the Government of a. P has rightly withdrawn the said benefit through G. O. Ms. No. 561. If we were to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the G. O. Ms. 3. 1993. It could be said that a concession obtained by fraud or misrepresentation cannot be extended for indefinite period and the Government of a. P has rightly withdrawn the said benefit through G. O. Ms. No. 561. If we were to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the G. O. Ms. No. 377 was general and even if the grinding activity is not undertaken by the Flour Mills for sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products, they shall be entitled for the benefit of exemption of sales tax, it has to be mentioned here that the very issuance of g. O. is clouded with mist as held by the division Bench in Roxy Roller s case and on that ground alone the submission of the appellants has to be rejected. However, the division Bench of this Court in Panyam cement s case held as follows:"where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve the intention of the legislature and produce a rational result". As indicated by us, the G. O. was issued on the basis of misrepresentation made by the millers Association to the Government of andhra Pradesh which has been found fault by the Division Bench of this Court in Roxy Roller s case. In the prayer portion of the representation made to the government of Andhra Pradesh by the president of the Association of Flour Mills, it has been categorically stated that such of those mills which undertake the process of grinding shall be entitled for exemption from payment of sales tax at both points either purchase or sale of wheat or wheat products. ( 8 ) IF we analyse the background, it will be difficult for us to appreciate how such a meaning could be given to the G. O. , even though the language is clothed to give a different meaning as held by the Division bench of this Court in Panyam Cement s case. The Court is entitled to modify the language. used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature. The Court is entitled to modify the language. used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature. Even from common sense point of view, if the miller purchases the wheat from Food corporation of India, though he pays sales Tax at that point, when he intends to sell the wheat is not liable to collect tax from the purchaser or consumer. Difficulty would arise when the process of grinding is taken up and either Atta or Rawa is sold, as the rate of tax for the grinded goods is much higher than the wheat itself and therefore the exemption is sought. If exemption is not sought and if wheat or wheat products are to be sold by the Millers without any liability, they need not seek any exemption, as they would come in the category of mere dealer as defined under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act. Though it is said that the powers are conferred on the State Government either to increase or reduce the rates of tax under Section 9 of the Act, there is no dispute as far as the provisions of the Act. The question is whether the Government had intended to extend the benefit or not. Though the learned Counsel for the appellants relied on a decision in Anandi roller s case, we think, the facts of that case are not akin to the facts of the case on hand. In that case what was examined is whether the dealers are entitled to claim the exemption under the cst Act. It is in that context the Division bench of this Court examined the same and incidentally the G. O. Ms. No. 377 was also examined, but not from the point of view whether the said G. O. extends the benefit to all or only the Flour Mills dealing in sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products though process of grinding is not undertaken. The meaning for the word flour as given in the Oxford Dictionary is a meal or powder obtained by grinding and usually sifting cereals esp. , wheat. In other words, the process of grinding is an important facet of Flour Mills and therefore, the appellants cannot seek the benefit. Without there being the process of grinding, they shall not be entitled for the benefit under the G. O. 377. , wheat. In other words, the process of grinding is an important facet of Flour Mills and therefore, the appellants cannot seek the benefit. Without there being the process of grinding, they shall not be entitled for the benefit under the G. O. 377. ( 9 ) FOR the above said reasons we find no justification in the appeals and both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. However in the circumstances no order as to costs.