ORDER The Petitioner is agitating its right of Input Tax Credit on the purchase of Pesticides, Manure, Fertilizers and Chemicals used for growing the tea. The Petitioner is a partnership firm owning the Tea Estate. It is engaged in the cultivation of Tea Plants and in the manufacture of Commercial Tea. It is registered as a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It has sought clarification, invoking Section 59 of the said Act, indicating that it is entitled to claim Input Tax Set-off from 1.4.2005 on the purchase of the said inputs for growing the Tea Plants. The Respondent 2 has passed the order on 2.3.2010 issuing the clarification to the effect that the deduction of tax paid on the purchase of the said inputs for growing the Tea Crop from the Output Tax payable on sale of manufactured Commercial Tea is not permissible under the provisions of the said Act. It is this order, which is impugned in this Petition. Shri D. Venkatesh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although tea cultivation is otherwise an agricultural activity, for the purposes of the said Act, tea is not an agricultural or a horticultural produce. He brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 2(3) of the said Act, which reads as follows :- "2(3) "Agricultural produce or horticultural produce" shall not be deemed to include tea, beedi leaves, raw cashew, timber, wood, tamarind and such produce, except coffee as has been subject to any physical, chemical or other process for being made fit for consumption, save mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying". Nextly, Sri Venkatesh brings to my notice the Explanation 4(a) to Section 2(12) of the said Act, which is extracted hereinbelow : "4(a) An agriculturist who sells exclusively agricultural produce grown on land cultivated by him personally or a person who is exclusively engaged in poultry farming and sells the products of such Poultry Farm shall not be deemed to be a dealer within the meaning of this clause". Sri Venkatesh submits that the combined reading of the afore-extracted provisions show that the said Act has created a legal fiction that Tea Growing Farmer is not an Agriculturist and that tea is not an agricultural produce at all. Sri Venkatesh submits that the combined reading of the afore-extracted provisions show that the said Act has created a legal fiction that Tea Growing Farmer is not an Agriculturist and that tea is not an agricultural produce at all. When the Petitioner is not an Agriculturist and when it is registered dealer, it is entitled to credit on the tax paid on the inputs in question. The learned Counsel also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited v. State of Kerala, (1977) 39 STC 1 (SC) : AIR 1976 SC 2469 : (1976) 4 SCC 470 has no application for the facts of this case. He submits that the said judgment was rendered in the context of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'CST Act' for short). The said Central enactment did not contain any provisions akin to or corresponding to the provisions contained in Section 2(3) and Section 2(12), Explanation 4(a) of the said Act. Sri Venkatesh also strenuously contends that the provisions made in respect of Coffee are not therein respect of tea. He submits that the Petitioner also grows and manufactures Commercial Coffee, but it is seeking Input Tax Credit only in respect of tea in view of the special provisions totally excluding tea from the definition of 'Agricultural produce or horticultural produce'. Per contra, Sri Shivayogiswamy, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 10(2) of the said Act which state that Input Tax in relation to any registered dealer means the tax collected or payable under the said Act on the sale to him of any used goods in the course of business, and includes the tax on the sale of goods to his agent who purchases such goods on his behalf subject to the manner as may be prescribed to claim Input Tax in such cases. It is Sri Shivayogiswamy's emphatic submission that, as the inputs in question are required for agricultural operations, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any credit or set-off for the tax paid on the inputs. The learned Government Pleader brings to my notice the definition contained in Section 2(2) of the said Act, which states that "Agriculturist" means a person who cultivates the land personally. The learned Government Pleader brings to my notice the definition contained in Section 2(2) of the said Act, which states that "Agriculturist" means a person who cultivates the land personally. That the Petitioner has been cultivating the land is not in dispute at all. That the Petitioner needs the inputs in question for the agricultural operations is also not in dispute at all. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Respondent 2 is absolutely sustainable. He further submits that the Second Respondent has issued the clarification in question following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Travancore, wherein it is held that the Fertilizers, Chemicals, Weedicides, Pesticides, Insecticides, Fungicides for use in tea cultivation cannot be said to be the goods intended for use in manufacturing or processing of tea. Sri Shivayogiswamy further submits that the definition of the term "input" as contained in Section 2(19) of the said Act is that any goods purchased by the dealer in the course of his business for resale or for use in the manufacturing or processing or packing or storing of other goods or any other use in business. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my anxious consideration. My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Second Respondent has proceeded on the fallacy that the Petitioner's tea growing is an agricultural activity. He has held that, as the Fertilizers, Chemicals, Pesticides are not required for the business activity, the Input Tax paid on their purchases cannot be considered for deduction out of the Output Tax payable on the sale of Commercial Tea. Further, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Travancore has served as the foundation for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. But what cannot be lost sight of is that the said judgment was passed in a case falling for consideration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As contended by Sri Venkatesh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there are no provisions in the CST Act excluding the tea cultivation/plantation from the purview of agriculture. A judgment is a good law for what it has decided. The implications of the Petitioner not being an Agriculturist and the tea not being agricultural or horticultural produce for the purpose of the said Act are not examined by the Second Respondent. A judgment is a good law for what it has decided. The implications of the Petitioner not being an Agriculturist and the tea not being agricultural or horticultural produce for the purpose of the said Act are not examined by the Second Respondent. What is required to be considered by the Respondent 2 is the entitlement or otherwise based on the Petitioner's registration as a dealer under the said Act, when the Petitioner is not an Agriculturist and tea is not an agricultural or horticultural produce. This aspect of the matter has to be examined and thereafter fresh orders are to be passed by the Respondent 2. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed, but the same does not automatically mean that the Petitioner is entitled to Input Tax Credit or set-off on Fertilizers, Chemicals, Manure, etc. The issue has to be re-examined by the Second Respondent. The Petitioner is directed to be present before the Second Respondent on 3.8.2010 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for any notice from him. Needless to observe that the Second Respondent shall consider the Petitioner's query under Section 59 of the said Act independently of and uninfluenced by his earlier decision. These Petitions are accordingly disposed-of. No order as to costs.