ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. In these writ petitions, common question has arisen for consideration hence, they are being decided by this common order. 2. In W.P. No. 12502/2006 M/s Phoenix Poultry v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. assessment order dated 31/12/2004 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur and order dated 12/01/2006 passed in Revision Case No. 189/R/05 passed by Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur have been assailed. 3. Petitioner in W.P. No. 12502/2006 has submitted that Petitioner is a proprietary concern runs hatchery business wherein by way of biological process, the chicks are produced. These chicks are known as commercial flocks. For the purpose of keeping alive the parental mother (birds), they are fed with poultry feed made of ingredients as maize, dry fish, kodha and waste soyabeen. For the aforesaid purpose, the Petitioner purchases poultry ingredients from various dealers engaged to lead business in Madhya Pradesh and others outside States. The said feed is fed to the parental mother birds. Poultry ingredients are not used in any way for feeding new born one day chicks, hence, the Petitioner's case does not come under the purview of consumption or use of such goods referred to in Section 3(1)(b) of the Entry Tax Act, 1976. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jabalpur passed the assessment order holding the Petitioner liable for payment of entry tax to the extent of Rs. 38,09,198/- which includes tax on plant and machinery and poultry feed ingredients. Interest has also been imposed. Aggrieved by the same, a. revision was preferred and the same has been dismissed hence, the present petitions have been preferred. 4. Petitioner has further averred that eggs laid down by the mother, birds are collected and kept for 21 days for various process. After 21 days of hatching, chicks are born. These chicks are known as commercial chicks. The one day chicks are not given any poultry feed ingredients. The Petitioner submits that since the chicks are neither reared nor fed in the hatchery, therefore, the poultry feed is not at all required to be used for the purpose of feeding the said flocks. The poultry feed is given to mother birds and not to feed the chicks which are the end products thus, within Section 3(1)(b)(III) of M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 entry tax could not have been levied. The poultry feed is given to mother birds and not to feed the chicks which are the end products thus, within Section 3(1)(b)(III) of M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 entry tax could not have been levied. The parental food purchased from various dealers is not at all used in the course of business. There is no sale of parental birds. An application has been filed to raise additional ground by the Petitioner on 18/03/2010. It is submitted that the order of Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed in revision petition dated 12/01/2006 was served on the Petitioner on 3/04/2006, after the period of three months. Thus, the order was not passed within the period of limitation. The order of Assistant Commissioner passed on 31/12/2004 was served upon him on 17/03/2005. 5. In the return filed by the Respondents, it is contended that in the hatchery business the parent birds are kept in breeder forms where they lay eggs. The hatchery is a machine having two parts (i) Incubator and (ii) Hatcher. The eggs laid by the parental birds are cleaned by different means and thereafter, the same are placed in the incubator for about 19 days in controlled temperature. The chicks come out on 21st day. The biological process is limited only upto laying of eggs by parents flocks in breeder form and thereafter the mechanise process starts. The chicks come out of the eggs are credited as (i) Broiler Chicks (ii) Layer Chicks and: (iii) Cockerels. The broiler and cockerels are sold in the market for flesh whereas layer birds/commercial birds lays eggs, which are sold in the market. The eggs laid by layer chicks are not fertile eggs. The approximate frequency of laying eggs of layer birds is 60 to 70 weeks and thereafter, they require more feed and lay less eggs and therefore, they become unprofitable for the purpose of business and are sold in the market as "Culled Birds". Section 2(b) of the Act defines entry tax, a tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use of sale therein, levied and payable. Whereas local area is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Act defines taxable purchase. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and is engaged in the business of poultry and hatchery. Whereas local area is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Act defines taxable purchase. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and is engaged in the business of poultry and hatchery. The Petitioner has submitted that in the balance sheet the assessing authority has shown the sales in relation to broiler chicks, layer chicks, cockerel, culled birds, broiler culled Birds, commercial birds, culled eggs. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The aforesaid birds are being sold in the market for flesh in the course of business whereby Petitioner earns the profit as apparent from the audit report of the Petitioner (R-1). The Petitioner is bound to make the payment of tax as per the decision of the Apex Court passed in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (1999) 9 SCC 162 . 6. It is further contended that Section 27(8) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act provides that an assessment shall be made within a period of two calender years from the end of the period for which the assessment is to be made. It is nowhere contemplated that within the stipulated period of two calender years in which order can be passed, it has to be communicated otherwise the assessment will become void or time barred. It would be relevant hereto mention that by dispatch No. 270 dated 31/12/2004, the order of assessment was dispatched for service to the Petitioner through process server of Commercial Tax Department. It is further submitted that in the place like Jabalpur where the Petitioner is registered in Circle-3, Jahalpur, there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 1237 assessment orders in the month of December, 2006 and January, 2007, which were served by a team of two Process Servers. It is further submitted that these two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. These includes notices for registration cancellation, issuance of advance tax for non-filing of return and demand notices against recovery. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it could not have been said that the order of assessment was antedated. It is further submitted that these two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. These includes notices for registration cancellation, issuance of advance tax for non-filing of return and demand notices against recovery. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it could not have been said that the order of assessment was antedated. In this matter, the assessment involved was of the year 2001-2002. 7. In W.P. No. 1029/2008 filed by the same Petitioner, the entry tax has been imposed for the year 2003-2004 with effect from 1/04/2003 to 31/03/2004. Other submissions are the same except the fact that the order of assessment was passed on 19/01/2007 and it was served on 28/02/2007. 8. It is submitted in the return that in Circle-3, Jabalpur, there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 895 assessment orders in the month of January, 2007, which were served by a team of two Process Servers. These two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. From the month of December, 2007 to June, 2008, 1594 notices were issued against registration cancellation, 1811 demand notices against recovery and 103 advance tax notices were issued by the Officers. Regarding the case of Mafatlal Industries v. C.T.O. 101 STC 471. it is submitted that the aforesaid case is factually different from the present case as the order was passed within the period of limitation. 9. Coming to the first question raised by the Petitioner in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (supra), considering the purport of word 'manufacture' used in M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 which is pari-materia with definition of 'manufacture' in M.P. Commercial Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both acts are parimateria. The Appellants in the said case were denied registration as a manufacturer for the purpose of M.P. General Sale Tax Act, 1958 as in the opinion of Sales Tax Officer, such rearing of chicks did not amount to manufacture. Both acts are parimateria. The Appellants in the said case were denied registration as a manufacturer for the purpose of M.P. General Sale Tax Act, 1958 as in the opinion of Sales Tax Officer, such rearing of chicks did not amount to manufacture. Considering the definition of 'goods' in Section 2(g) of the Act and the manufacture as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, the Apex Court has laid down that it is not possible to uphold the reasonings of the Sales Tax Officer that 'goods' would not include animate objects for the purposes of Section 2(j) of the Act but would include animate objects for other purposes of the Act. The definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(j) of the Act includes any manner of preparing goods. The preparing of any goods for the market is, therefore, for the purposes of this artificial definition, a process of manufacture. 10. The word 'goods' has been defined in Section 2(k) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Goods means all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, newspapers, stocks, shares, securities or Government stamps and includes all materials, articles and commodities, whether or not to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of movable or immovable property, and also includes all growing crops, grass, trees, plants and things attached to, or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before the sale or under the contract of sale; The word 'manufacture' is defined in Section 2(o) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Manufacture includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods, but does not include such manufacture or manufacturing process as may be notified. It is clear from the definition of 'manufacture' that the definition is inclusive and the preparing or making any goods any process or manner of producing, collecting and extracting is called manufacture. The process of taking out of the chicks amounts to process of manufacture. The submission raised that it is a purely natural and biological process based on the decision of this Court in Phoenix Poultry v. Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur and Anr. (1999) 32 VKN 36 cannot be followed in view of the binding decision of Apex Court in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (supra). In Central Hatcheries Private Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 32 VKN 36 cannot be followed in view of the binding decision of Apex Court in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (supra). In Central Hatcheries Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2007 (2) MPLJ 184 case not be applied as that related to levy of market fees under M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam. 11. The audit report filed by the Petitioner indicates that it has shown the sales in relation to broiler chicks, layer chicks, cockerel, culled birds, broiler culled birds, commercial birds, culled eggs. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks which are instrumental and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The aforesaid birds are being sold in the market in the course of business. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks which are instrumental and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The aforesaid birds are being sold in the market in the course of business. Business has been defined in Section 2(c) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Business includes (a) any trade, commerce, manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture, whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern and irrespective of the volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; and (b) any transaction of sale or purchase of goods in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern referred to in Sub-clause (a), that is to say (i) goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) whether or not they are specified in the registration certificate, if any, of the dealer under the said Act and whether or not they are in their original form or in the form of second hand goods, unserviceable goods, obsolete or discarded goods, mere scrap or waste material; and (ii) goods which are obtained as waste products or by-products in the course of manufacture or processing of other goods or mining or generation of or distribution of electrical energy or any other form of power; Considering the aforesaid definition and .definition of manufacture and goods and also the fact that it is apparent that there is consumption of poultry feed, Petitioner has been rightly saddled with the liability to make the payment of entry tax. 12. Coming to the submission raised by the Petitioner with respect to the assessment orders being barred by limitation, the order in W.P. No. 12502/2006 was passed on 31/12/2004, it was served on 17/03/2005 whereas the order of assessment in W.P. No. 1029/2008 was passed on 19/01/2007 and was served on 28/02/2007. It was submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the orders have been antedated. It was submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the orders have been antedated. Had really been passed within time would have been served earlier. In the return the Respondents have explained that in Circle-3 Jabalpur there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 895 assessment order in the month of January 2007, which were served by a team of two process servers. From January 2007 to June 2008 1811 demand notices against recovery and 103 advance tax notices were issued by the Officers. Considering such large number of notices, assessment orders which were passed, it could not have been said that orders have been antedated in the aforesaid cases. Reasonable time is bound to be consumed by the process servers in serving large number of notices and the orders of assessment. Time consumed cannot said to be so much enormous so as to give any room to presume that orders have been antedated. Apart from that, we find that the question of order being antedated was not raised before the revisional authority by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 12502/2006. It has also not been raised in the original memo of writ petition filed in 2006. The application has been filed to raise the said question by way of additional ground in March, 2010. It is clearly an after thought of the Petitioner to raise the aforesaid question in the petition. 13. In writ petition No. 1029/2008 the assessment order was passed 19th January, 2007 and it has been served in February, 2007, the next very month. Considering the aforesaid huge task with the process servers of circle 3 Jabalpur, it could not be said that the order was antedated. Before the revisional authority this point was not argued. No specific ground was raised with respect to limitation or the order being antedated in the memo of revision. It was submitted before the revisional authority that the order was illegal. The point of limitation was also not raised in the course of argument it would have been mentioned by the revisional authority in its order. Whatever that may be in our opinion in none of the case the order appears to be antedated. It was submitted before the revisional authority that the order was illegal. The point of limitation was also not raised in the course of argument it would have been mentioned by the revisional authority in its order. Whatever that may be in our opinion in none of the case the order appears to be antedated. What is required Under Section 27(8) of the Act is that the order of assessment should be passed within the period of two calendar years and the orders were passed within the two calendar years as apparent from the date of the order. We are not ready to accept that the orders were antedated. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions raised by the Petitioner. 14. Writ petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. In these writ petitions, common question has arisen for consideration hence, they are being decided by this common order. 2. In W.P. No. 12502/2006 M/s Phoenix Poultry v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. assessment order dated 31/12/2004 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur and order dated 12/01/2006 passed in Revision Case No. 189/R/05 passed by Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur have been assailed. 3. Petitioner in W.P. No. 12502/2006 has submitted that Petitioner is a proprietary concern runs hatchery business wherein by way of biological process, the chicks are produced. These chicks are known as commercial flocks. For the purpose of keeping alive the parental mother (birds), they are fed with poultry feed made of ingredients as maize, dry fish, kodha and waste soyabeen. For the aforesaid purpose, the Petitioner purchases poultry ingredients from various dealers engaged to lead business in Madhya Pradesh and others outside States. The said feed is fed to the parental mother birds. Poultry ingredients are not used in any way for feeding new born one day chicks, hence, the Petitioner's case does not come under the purview of consumption or use of such goods referred to in Section 3(1)(b) of the Entry Tax Act, 1976. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jabalpur passed the assessment order holding the Petitioner liable for payment of entry tax to the extent of Rs. 38,09,198/- which includes tax on plant and machinery and poultry feed ingredients. Interest has also been imposed. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jabalpur passed the assessment order holding the Petitioner liable for payment of entry tax to the extent of Rs. 38,09,198/- which includes tax on plant and machinery and poultry feed ingredients. Interest has also been imposed. Aggrieved by the same, a. revision was preferred and the same has been dismissed hence, the present petitions have been preferred. 4. Petitioner has further averred that eggs laid down by the mother, birds are collected and kept for 21 days for various process. After 21 days of hatching, chicks are born. These chicks are known as commercial chicks. The one day chicks are not given any poultry feed ingredients. The Petitioner submits that since the chicks are neither reared nor fed in the hatchery, therefore, the poultry feed is not at all required to be used for the purpose of feeding the said flocks. The poultry feed is given to mother birds and not to feed the chicks which are the end products thus, within Section 3(1)(b)(III) of M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 entry tax could not have been levied. The parental food purchased from various dealers is not at all used in the course of business. There is no sale of parental birds. An application has been filed to raise additional ground by the Petitioner on 18/03/2010. It is submitted that the order of Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed in revision petition dated 12/01/2006 was served on the Petitioner on 3/04/2006, after the period of three months. Thus, the order was not passed within the period of limitation. The order of Assistant Commissioner passed on 31/12/2004 was served upon him on 17/03/2005. 5. In the return filed by the Respondents, it is contended that in the hatchery business the parent birds are kept in breeder forms where they lay eggs. The hatchery is a machine having two parts (i) Incubator and (ii) Hatcher. The eggs laid by the parental birds are cleaned by different means and thereafter, the same are placed in the incubator for about 19 days in controlled temperature. The chicks come out on 21st day. The biological process is limited only upto laying of eggs by parents flocks in breeder form and thereafter the mechanise process starts. The chicks come out of the eggs are credited as (i) Broiler Chicks (ii) Layer Chicks and: (iii) Cockerels. The chicks come out on 21st day. The biological process is limited only upto laying of eggs by parents flocks in breeder form and thereafter the mechanise process starts. The chicks come out of the eggs are credited as (i) Broiler Chicks (ii) Layer Chicks and: (iii) Cockerels. The broiler and cockerels are sold in the market for flesh whereas layer birds/commercial birds lays eggs, which are sold in the market. The eggs laid by layer chicks are not fertile eggs. The approximate frequency of laying eggs of layer birds is 60 to 70 weeks and thereafter, they require more feed and lay less eggs and therefore, they become unprofitable for the purpose of business and are sold in the market as "Culled Birds". Section 2(b) of the Act defines entry tax, a tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use of sale therein, levied and payable. Whereas local area is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Act defines taxable purchase. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and is engaged in the business of poultry and hatchery. The Petitioner has submitted that in the balance sheet the assessing authority has shown the sales in relation to broiler chicks, layer chicks, cockerel, culled birds, broiler culled Birds, commercial birds, culled eggs. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The aforesaid birds are being sold in the market for flesh in the course of business whereby Petitioner earns the profit as apparent from the audit report of the Petitioner (R-1). The Petitioner is bound to make the payment of tax as per the decision of the Apex Court passed in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (1999) 9 SCC 162 . 6. It is further contended that Section 27(8) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act provides that an assessment shall be made within a period of two calender years from the end of the period for which the assessment is to be made. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (1999) 9 SCC 162 . 6. It is further contended that Section 27(8) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act provides that an assessment shall be made within a period of two calender years from the end of the period for which the assessment is to be made. It is nowhere contemplated that within the stipulated period of two calender years in which order can be passed, it has to be communicated otherwise the assessment will become void or time barred. It would be relevant hereto mention that by dispatch No. 270 dated 31/12/2004, the order of assessment was dispatched for service to the Petitioner through process server of Commercial Tax Department. It is further submitted that in the place like Jabalpur where the Petitioner is registered in Circle-3, Jahalpur, there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 1237 assessment orders in the month of December, 2006 and January, 2007, which were served by a team of two Process Servers. It is further submitted that these two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. These includes notices for registration cancellation, issuance of advance tax for non-filing of return and demand notices against recovery. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it could not have been said that the order of assessment was antedated. In this matter, the assessment involved was of the year 2001-2002. 7. In W.P. No. 1029/2008 filed by the same Petitioner, the entry tax has been imposed for the year 2003-2004 with effect from 1/04/2003 to 31/03/2004. Other submissions are the same except the fact that the order of assessment was passed on 19/01/2007 and it was served on 28/02/2007. 8. It is submitted in the return that in Circle-3, Jabalpur, there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 895 assessment orders in the month of January, 2007, which were served by a team of two Process Servers. These two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. From the month of December, 2007 to June, 2008, 1594 notices were issued against registration cancellation, 1811 demand notices against recovery and 103 advance tax notices were issued by the Officers. Regarding the case of Mafatlal Industries v. C.T.O. 101 STC 471. These two process servers also serve different other notices issued by the Officers. From the month of December, 2007 to June, 2008, 1594 notices were issued against registration cancellation, 1811 demand notices against recovery and 103 advance tax notices were issued by the Officers. Regarding the case of Mafatlal Industries v. C.T.O. 101 STC 471. it is submitted that the aforesaid case is factually different from the present case as the order was passed within the period of limitation. 9. Coming to the first question raised by the Petitioner in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (supra), considering the purport of word 'manufacture' used in M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 which is pari-materia with definition of 'manufacture' in M.P. Commercial Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both acts are parimateria. The Appellants in the said case were denied registration as a manufacturer for the purpose of M.P. General Sale Tax Act, 1958 as in the opinion of Sales Tax Officer, such rearing of chicks did not amount to manufacture. Considering the definition of 'goods' in Section 2(g) of the Act and the manufacture as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, the Apex Court has laid down that it is not possible to uphold the reasonings of the Sales Tax Officer that 'goods' would not include animate objects for the purposes of Section 2(j) of the Act but would include animate objects for other purposes of the Act. The definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(j) of the Act includes any manner of preparing goods. The preparing of any goods for the market is, therefore, for the purposes of this artificial definition, a process of manufacture. 10. The definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(j) of the Act includes any manner of preparing goods. The preparing of any goods for the market is, therefore, for the purposes of this artificial definition, a process of manufacture. 10. The word 'goods' has been defined in Section 2(k) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Goods means all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, newspapers, stocks, shares, securities or Government stamps and includes all materials, articles and commodities, whether or not to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of movable or immovable property, and also includes all growing crops, grass, trees, plants and things attached to, or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before the sale or under the contract of sale; The word 'manufacture' is defined in Section 2(o) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Manufacture includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods, but does not include such manufacture or manufacturing process as may be notified. It is clear from the definition of 'manufacture' that the definition is inclusive and the preparing or making any goods any process or manner of producing, collecting and extracting is called manufacture. The process of taking out of the chicks amounts to process of manufacture. The submission raised that it is a purely natural and biological process based on the decision of this Court in Phoenix Poultry v. Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur and Anr. (1999) 32 VKN 36 cannot be followed in view of the binding decision of Apex Court in Indian Poultry and Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon (supra). In Central Hatcheries Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2007 (2) MPLJ 184 case not be applied as that related to levy of market fees under M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam. 11. The audit report filed by the Petitioner indicates that it has shown the sales in relation to broiler chicks, layer chicks, cockerel, culled birds, broiler culled birds, commercial birds, culled eggs. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks which are instrumental and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The said description of sale shows that the Petitioner is specifically involved in the business of poultry and hatchery and is consuming the poultry feeds for survival of parental flocks which are instrumental and for upbringing of layer birds, cockerel and culled birds. The aforesaid birds are being sold in the market in the course of business. Business has been defined in Section 2(c) of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 thus: Business includes (a) any trade, commerce, manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture, whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern and irrespective of the volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; and (b) any transaction of sale or purchase of goods in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern referred to in Sub-clause (a), that is to say (i) goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) whether or not they are specified in the registration certificate, if any, of the dealer under the said Act and whether or not they are in their original form or in the form of second hand goods, unserviceable goods, obsolete or discarded goods, mere scrap or waste material; and (ii) goods which are obtained as waste products or by-products in the course of manufacture or processing of other goods or mining or generation of or distribution of electrical energy or any other form of power; Considering the aforesaid definition and .definition of manufacture and goods and also the fact that it is apparent that there is consumption of poultry feed, Petitioner has been rightly saddled with the liability to make the payment of entry tax. 12. Coming to the submission raised by the Petitioner with respect to the assessment orders being barred by limitation, the order in W.P. No. 12502/2006 was passed on 31/12/2004, it was served on 17/03/2005 whereas the order of assessment in W.P. No. 1029/2008 was passed on 19/01/2007 and was served on 28/02/2007. It was submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the orders have been antedated. It was submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the orders have been antedated. Had really been passed within time would have been served earlier. In the return the Respondents have explained that in Circle-3 Jabalpur there are 5 Assessing Officers posted including the Assistant Commissioner, who have passed 895 assessment order in the month of January 2007, which were served by a team of two process servers. From January 2007 to June 2008 1811 demand notices against recovery and 103 advance tax notices were issued by the Officers. Considering such large number of notices, assessment orders which were passed, it could not have been said that orders have been antedated in the aforesaid cases. Reasonable time is bound to be consumed by the process servers in serving large number of notices and the orders of assessment. Time consumed cannot said to be so much enormous so as to give any room to presume that orders have been antedated. Apart from that, we find that the question of order being antedated was not raised before the revisional authority by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 12502/2006. It has also not been raised in the original memo of writ petition filed in 2006. The application has been filed to raise the said question by way of additional ground in March, 2010. It is clearly an after thought of the Petitioner to raise the aforesaid question in the petition. 13. In writ petition No. 1029/2008 the assessment order was passed 19th January, 2007 and it has been served in February, 2007, the next very month. Considering the aforesaid huge task with the process servers of circle 3 Jabalpur, it could not be said that the order was antedated. Before the revisional authority this point was not argued. No specific ground was raised with respect to limitation or the order being antedated in the memo of revision. It was submitted before the revisional authority that the order was illegal. The point of limitation was also not raised in the course of argument it would have been mentioned by the revisional authority in its order. Whatever that may be in our opinion in none of the case the order appears to be antedated. It was submitted before the revisional authority that the order was illegal. The point of limitation was also not raised in the course of argument it would have been mentioned by the revisional authority in its order. Whatever that may be in our opinion in none of the case the order appears to be antedated. What is required Under Section 27(8) of the Act is that the order of assessment should be passed within the period of two calendar years and the orders were passed within the two calendar years as apparent from the date of the order. We are not ready to accept that the orders were antedated. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions raised by the Petitioner. 14. Writ petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.