ORDER 1. W.P.(T)No. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103,104, and W.P,(T) No. 107 of 2012, involve common facts as well as one and the same question of law, require to be decided by common order. 2. As all the facts are common, the facts and documents referred in the first petition i.e. W.P.(T) No. 79/2012, fire being taken for consideration. The petitioners are engaged in business of Tendu leaves. A tender was floated by the respondent No.1/Federation for advance sale of Tendu Leaves for collection season 2012. The petitioners submitted their offer which was accepted and communicated to the petitioners by the respondent No.1 on 16.01.2012 (Annexure P/1). The petitioners executed a purchase agreement with the respondent No. 1/Federation. Payment for each lot, as per the conditions contained in the agreement, was to be made in four installments i.e. on 04th October, 2012, 19th November, 2012, 4th January, 2013 and 15th February, 2013. As per condition No.8, tax leviable was to be paid alongwith installments and purchasers were required to pay the Value Added Tax (for short 'the VAT') under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the VAT Act'). The petitioners were directed to pay VAT at the rate of 25% on purchase of Tendu leaves. In the meantime, the State Government issued a notification on 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/4) granting exemption partly so as to reduce the rate of tax on minor forest produce to 4%. The said notification was valid for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008. By notification dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-P/5), the exemption on final minor forest produce was further extended for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2012 reducing the rate of tax to 5%. Thereafter, on 24.03.2012 (Annexure P/6), by notification validity of the notification (Annexure P/5) was extended upto 31.03.2013. 3. Shri Shashank Dubey, learned Senior counsel appearing with Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned Advocate for the respective petitioners, would submit that the Act of 2005 does not contain any definition of minor forest produce but the Chhattisgarh State Forest Policy, 2001 (for short 'the Policy, 2001') (Annexure P/7) defines it as "non timber forest produce, including Tendu Leaves". 3. Shri Shashank Dubey, learned Senior counsel appearing with Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned Advocate for the respective petitioners, would submit that the Act of 2005 does not contain any definition of minor forest produce but the Chhattisgarh State Forest Policy, 2001 (for short 'the Policy, 2001') (Annexure P/7) defines it as "non timber forest produce, including Tendu Leaves". Further, in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Forest Rights Act, 2006'), it has been defined as "non timber forest produce including Tendu Leaves". Shri Dubey further submits that in Schedule II part III (Annexure P/11), Tendu Leaves is mentioned at serial No.5, however, no rate of tax is mentioned in column (3) thereof. In column (4), rate of 25% is mentioned under section 8(ii), however, in the Act, 2005, there is no section 8(ii), as it was omitted in 2006. 4. It is further urged that the petitioners are not liable to pay 25% tax on purchase of Tendu Leaves, but only 5% under notification dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure - P/5). 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Advocate General appearing with Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2 and Shri Kachhwaha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1/Federation, would submit that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the respondent No.1, wherein clause 8 of the purchase agreement is very specific. The State Government, by notification dated 01.09.2006, has amended the VAT tax for transaction of Tendu Leaves at the rate of 25%. The petitioner ought to have approached the Assessing Authority before filing the present writ petition. The petition is premature and on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, this petition is not maintainable. Once the specific rate has been notified for the Tendu Leaves, it cannot be considered as minor forest produce for the purpose of the taxation, irrespective of the definition of minor forest produce in other Acts. Besides, the State is fully competent to impose different rate of taxes for different minor forest produce. Shri Agrawal, would further submit that vide amendments in CG VAT (Amendment) Act. 2006 (No. 26 of 2006) (jar short 'the Amendment Act') w.e.f. 01.04.2006, Tendu Leaves is exigible to tax at the rate of 25%. 6. Besides, the State is fully competent to impose different rate of taxes for different minor forest produce. Shri Agrawal, would further submit that vide amendments in CG VAT (Amendment) Act. 2006 (No. 26 of 2006) (jar short 'the Amendment Act') w.e.f. 01.04.2006, Tendu Leaves is exigible to tax at the rate of 25%. 6. Learned Advocate General would next contend that there is a special Act dealing with the trade in Tendu Leaves namely Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. 1964 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1964') and as such. Tendu Leaves cannot be treated as minor forest produce. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to exemption under the exemption notification dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure P/4). Shri Agrawal would further submit that the contention of the petitioner that under the Policy, 2001, and the Act, 2006, the minor forest produce has been defined as "non timber forest produce including tendu leaves", therefore the Tendu Leaves cannot be taxed at the rate of more than 5%, is fallacious and without substance, because under no circumstances, when there are separate entries in Schedule II for forest produce and there is a separate entry for Tendu leaves, taxable at the rate of 25%, it cannot be said that the Tendu Leaves, being a minor forest produce, is entitled to benefit of exemption. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Initially, the rate of tax in respect of Tendu Leaves was in column No.4 under Section 8 (ii) of the Act, 2005. Section 8 is charging section which provides that there shall be levied on goods specified in Schedule II, a tax at the rate mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. Subsequently, by Amendment Act, 2006, schedule II of the principal Act, 2005 was amended and the column No.3 was omitted and column No.4 was re-numbered as column No.3 and 'Rate of tax under Section 8 (ii)' was substituted by 'Rate of tax under Section 8 percent'. Thus, the defect in Schedule II was amended and the rate of tax was brought under column No. 3 and as such, rate of tax was in accordance with the charging section 8. Thus, there is no infirmity with regard to Schedule II for the purpose of rate of tax. 9. Thus, the defect in Schedule II was amended and the rate of tax was brought under column No. 3 and as such, rate of tax was in accordance with the charging section 8. Thus, there is no infirmity with regard to Schedule II for the purpose of rate of tax. 9. Shri Dubey, on behalf of the petitioners, without amending the pleadings, argues that since the amending Act was not in accordance with the provisions of section 15A of the Act, 2005 which provides for amendment of Schedule, the amendment is not proper and cannot be relied upon. Section 15A provides for amendment by way of notification by the State Government in Schedule II. It is further provided in sub-section (3) of section 15A that every notification issued under sub-section (1) shall, as soon as may be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. The gazette publication was also made moreover, there was no change in the rate of tax as prescribed in the Schedule II. The same rate of tax, which was provided in column No.4 was renumbered by Amendment Act and was brought under column No.3 in accordance with the requirement of section 8 of the Act, 2005. The Act was amended by the State Legislature. Thus, it cannot be held that proper procedure for notification as prescribed under section 15A of the Act, 2005 was not followed and, as such, the same is vitiated. There is also no pleadings to that effect except oral submission, as aforestated, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, on both counts this contention of the petitioners is noticed to be rejected. If the power to amend Schedule II has been conferred upon the State Government, the same can be exercised by the delegator also i.e. legislature. There is no challenge to the validity, constitutionality of the amending Act. Thus, tendu Leaves was exigible to the tax at the rate of tax of 25% under Schedule II. 10. As regards applicability of the exemption notifications dated 31.3.2006 (Annexure - P/4) and 31.03.2008 (Annexure P/5). period of which has been extended till 30.04.2013, it will be applicable to only those good or class of goods, which are exigible to tax as specified in schedule - II of the Act, 2005. There is no taxable entry separately for minor forest produce. period of which has been extended till 30.04.2013, it will be applicable to only those good or class of goods, which are exigible to tax as specified in schedule - II of the Act, 2005. There is no taxable entry separately for minor forest produce. The exemption notifications provide for granting exemption to minor forest produce partly so as to reduce the rate of tax to 5%. This tax exemption is available to all the minor forest produce. The State Government, in its return dated 26.11.2012 has clearly stated that minor forest produce are in several entries, as follows: "9....However, by perusal of certain specific entries in Schedule 1 like entry No.4 - aquatic feed, poultry feed and cattle feed including grass, hay and straw, entry No.5 - Betel leaves, entry No. 17 -Firewood excluding casuarinas and eucalyptus timber, entry No. 22 - fresh plants, saplings and fresh flowers, entry No 32 - leaf plates and cups, pressed or stitched (Done and pattal), entry No. 42 -Sabai grass and rope made of sabai grass, entry No. 44 seeds of all types other than methi, dhaniya and the seeds which are covered by the term "oil seeds" specified in section 14(vi) of the Central Sales tax act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956), entry No. 51 Toddy, Neera and Ark would reveal that although they are the forest produces but since for tax purpose, a specific entry entries have been made in Schedule 1 of Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005 by which these products although being the minor forest produce, have been exempted from taxation by making separate specific entries." 11. Clause 4.5 of the Policy, 2001, defines minor forest produce as under: "4.5 Conservation of Minor Forest Products (MFP) Non timber forest produce called the Minor Forest Products or MFP like Tendu leaves, Sal seed, imli, Chironji, Kullu and Dhawra gum, Kosa cocoon, Honey etc. ........" 12. Minor forest produce has also been defined in Section 2 (i) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which reads as under : "2(i) 'minor forest produce' includes all non-timber forest produce of plant origin including bamboo, brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers and the like;" There is no other definition in any other provisions including the Adhiniyam, 1964. 13. 13. It is fairly admitted by Shri Agrawal that there is no separate entry, however, it is contended that wherever the separate entries for Tendu Leaves have been made, that would not come under the purview of the exemption. 14. The issue asto whether exemption would be available to such goods, which are not exigible to tax came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Reliance Trading Company Vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 147 STC 111 (SC) it was observed that "there could be nothing like exemption of goods from tax unless goods are exigible to tax." There is no dispute that minor forest produce as such, is not exigible to tax. Forest produce like Bamboo, Tendu leaves etc. are exigible to tax under different entries. Thus, the exemption is applicable to all the forest produce which are exigible to tax. The exemption will certainly be applicable to only those minor forest produce, which are exigible to tax. 15. In view of the foregoing, since these petitions involve mixed question of facts and law, liberty is reserved to the respective petitioners to prefer an application before the Commissioner, VAT Act, if so advised, for exemption under the above stated notification. In that event, the Commissioner, will decide the same in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The petitioners will also be at liberty to make an application for grant of stay in the payment of the tax, if so advised. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all these petitions stand disposed of. 17. No order asto costs. Petitions disposed of.