JUDGMENT:- R. Sudhakar, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in (i) S.T.A.No.116 of 2003 and quash the impugned order dated 1.2.2008; (ii) S.T.A.No.455 of 2003 and quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2007; and (iii) S.T.A.No.66 of 2005 and quash the impugned order dated 4.3.2008. 2.1. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner is a dealer in dressed hides and skins and a registered dealer on the file of the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. 2.2. The third respondent, on verification of the books of accounts of the petitioner, held that the processing of semi-finished leathers into finished leathers is not a manufacturing activity and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to purchase chemicals under Form XVII declarations and accordingly, levied tax on the estimated turnover and penalties under Section 12(3)(b) and Section 23 of the TNGST Act. 2.3. On appeals by the petitioner, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) set aside the orders passed by the Original Authority and allowed the appeals. 2.4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the State preferred appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the State. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.N.R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel on either side submit that this Court in Golden Leathers v. Secretary, TNSTAT, (2010) 35 VST 216 (Mad) has categorically held that the process of transformation of blue leather into finished leather amounts to manufacturing activity. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: “In the present case, it is very clear from the facts before us that if a person placed an order for finished leather, wet blue leather will not be supplied to them. The same observations are made by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1991) 80 STC 249 (SC). The same observations are made by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1991) 80 STC 249 (SC). It is clear that after the 12 processes, which have been described in the earlier paragraphs, wet blue leather gets transformed into finished leather, after which, it loses it identity as wet blue leather and becomes a different commodity with a distinct identity in the market and in the industry concerned. Therefore, we find that the activity satisfies all the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court to decide as to whether a process is a manufacture or not. The Tribunal did not take note of the factual finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who had not only referred to various stages, which the wet blue leather undergoes and becomes finished leather, but also the fact that each activity is known in the industry with different name. One is called the full-fledged unit, by which, the raw hides and skins get transformed into finished leather; the other is called the wet unit; and the third is called the dry unit. It is after discussing these facts the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that a manufacturing activity takes place. The Tribunal appears to have been persuaded by the fact that in item 7B of Schedule II to the Act, the two categories of leather that are mentioned in the entry are raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins. The entries indicate taxability and the rate. That cannot decide the issue as to whether any manufacturing activity takes place or not. Both wet leather and finished leather may be described as "dressed hides and skins" that is opposed to "raw hides and skins". But we must still examine whether, when the wet blue takes through the various stages, a manufacturing activity takes place. The change or series of changes take the wet blue to a point where it can no longer be regarded as wet blue but must be recognized as finisher leather. So there is a manufacture. This question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case that comes up for consideration, the processes that the particular goods pass through and whether they get converted or not and whether the inputs are used for such activity. In this case, we are satisfied that the activity amounts to a manufacturing activity.” (emphasis supplied) 5. This question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case that comes up for consideration, the processes that the particular goods pass through and whether they get converted or not and whether the inputs are used for such activity. In this case, we are satisfied that the activity amounts to a manufacturing activity.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Concededly, even in the case on hand wet blue (semi-finished) leather is converted into finished leather. In the light of the above said decision in Golden Leathers case, referred supra, which squarely applies to the case on hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the process of conversion of wet blue (semi-finished) leather into finished leather amounts to manufacturing activity. 6. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Golden Leathers case, referred supra. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 (3 Petitions) are closed.