ORDER 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. These four revision petitions arise from a common order dated 21st November 2011, passed by the Full Bench of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the Petitioner's - M/s. National Aluminium Company Limited, Angul's (NALCO) appeals i.e. S.A. Nos.50 to 53 of 2010-11. 3. While admitting these revision petitions on 6th November 2012, the following three questions of law were framed by this Court: 'a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to concessional rate of Entry Tax under Rule 3(4) (b) of the O.E.T. Rules, on the purchase of raw materials like Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO etc., as admittedly, these goods are specified in part I and part II of the Schedule to the O.E.T. Act? b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, no Entry Tax is excisable on purchase of 'raw material' such as Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO, upto 6th November 2000 in view of Rule 3(4) (b) as existed prior to 2nd amendment of OET Rules? and c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO utilized by the Petitioner in its CPP units are all 'raw material' for production of electricity as a finished good, ought not to have disallowed concessional rate of tax on a completely new ground that such goods are not mentioned in the registration certificate as 'raw material' without examining the assessment records and giving a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner that there is no requirement to disclose raw material in the registration certificate?' 4. It is clarified at the outset by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Petitioner that of the above three questions, question No.2 is peculiar to STREV No.31 of 2012 and not to the other three revision petitions since the said revision petition pertains to assessment year 1999-2000. 5. The background facts are that NALCO is a Public Sector Undertaking having its registered office at Bhubaneswar and having the following units: '(i) 8.00 Lakh Tons per year Aluminium Refinery Plant at Damanjodi in the district of Koraput. Presently enhanced to 15.75 Lakhs Tons per Annum. (ii) 2.10 Lakh Tons per year Aluminum Smelter Plant at Angul in the district of Angul (here-in-after referred to as 'Smelter Plant'). Presently enhanced to 15.75 Lakhs Tons per Annum. (ii) 2.10 Lakh Tons per year Aluminum Smelter Plant at Angul in the district of Angul (here-in-after referred to as 'Smelter Plant'). Presently enhanced to 3.45 Lakhs Tons per Annum. (iii) Thermal Captive Power Plant of 720 Megawatt meant for Smelter Plant at Angul (here-in-after referred to as 'CPP'). Presently enhanced to 960 Megawatt.' 6. NALCO had got itself registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957. It was allotted a separate registration under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (OST Act). The Smelter Plant was issued a registration certificate dated 20th May, 1982. For the Captive Power Plant (CPP), a separate registration certificate dated 16th August 1985, was issued under the OST Act and on introduction of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act), a separate registration number was allotted by the Sales Tax Department for the CPP and Smelter Plant. 7. During 1999-2000, NALCO had purchased coal from M/s. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (MCL) and other goods like Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO from various registered dealers inside Orissa and used these as raw materials for generation of electricity. This subsequently became the raw material in the continuous process of manufacturing of the finished products viz. Aluminium metal. NALCO purchased the aforementioned goods at a concessional rate of tax of 0.5 % against declaration Form E-15 as provided under Rule 3 (4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 1999 (OET Rules). 8. While completing the assessment proceedings on 31st March 2003, under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (OET Act), the Assessing Authority (AA) disallowed the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO were raw materials used in the process of generation of electricity, which was subsequently used as a raw material for manufacture of Aluminium metal, did not find mention in the registration certificate for the CPP. 9. Aggrieved by that order, NALCO preferred a Writ Petition (Civil) No.2387 of 2004 in this Court, which was disposed of on 9th December 2009, requiring the NALCO to prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 10. Appeals were then filed by NALCO before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (JCCT), Angul Range, Angul. The appeals were dismissed by the JCCT by an order dated 26th February, 2010. 10. Appeals were then filed by NALCO before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (JCCT), Angul Range, Angul. The appeals were dismissed by the JCCT by an order dated 26th February, 2010. Again a Writ Petition (Civil) No.8658 of 2010 was filed in this Court, which was disposed of by this Court permitting the Petitioner to go before the Tribunal. 11. Pursuant thereto, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has by the impugned order dated 21st November 2011, concluded that Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO, the raw materials used in the generation of electricity, did not find mention in the registration certificate issued under the OST Act. Therefore, the concessional rate of entry tax was disallowed on a purchase of such raw materials. 12. Thereafter, the NALCO preferred an application under Section 20 of the OET Act on 3rd February 2012, before the Tribunal for rectification of the mistake concerning non-mentioning of the aforementioned items in the registration certificate. 13. In an order dated 30th April, 2012 in the said application, the Tribunal agreed with the Petitioner that said items were mentioned in the registration certificate. However, the Tribunal observed that 'in this document these items are not described as raw materials.' The second reason was that the said items appeared to be added with effect from 14th March 1987 but 'there is no whisper that these are added to which column of their original registration certificate.' Only because they were not subsequently mentioned as 'raw materials', the Tribunal held that there is no apparent mistake in its earlier order necessitating rectification. 14. Thereafter, the present revision petitions were filed. 15. This Court has heard submissions of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party. 16. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that under Section 5 of the OST Act, where a registered dealer purchases goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration as being intended for use within the State of Orissa by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power at concessional rate of tax, after furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form, utilises it for any other purpose, they such dealer shall pay the difference in tax, as the case may be. 17. The Court has also been shown Form-III, which is a form of registration certificate issued under the OST Act. 18. Factually, in the present cases, it appears that registration certificate issued to the NALCO did mention the aforementioned items viz., Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO by an entry made with effect from 14th March, 1987. To say that the entry should have further mentioned that these were 'raw materials' is, in the considered view of the Court, hyper technical. There appears to be no dispute between the parties that in fact those materials were used as raw materials by the Petitioner. In fact, in its original order dated 21st November 2011, the Tribunal accepted that these materials were in fact used as raw materials. 19. It appears to the Court with the above essential fact not being in doubt by anybody, the mere fact that the registration certificate does not mention them as raw materials cannot result in depriving the Petitioner of the concession to which it is statutorily entitled. In other words NALCO cannot be made to suffer for the failure of the authority concerned to mention in the registration certificate issued under the OST Act that the above items are 'raw materials.' The approach of the Tribunal in this regard appears to this Court to be hyper technical. This is particularly eveident after the Full Bench of the Tribunal has accepted in the order dated 30th April 2012, while rejecting the rectification application that the said items in fact do find mention in the registration certificate issued to the NALCO. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court answers questions 'a' and 'c' in favour of the Petitioner and against the Department. It is ordered accordingly. 21. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court answers questions 'a' and 'c' in favour of the Petitioner and against the Department. It is ordered accordingly. 21. Turning down to the question 'b', it is seen that the position under the OET Rules after 6th November 2000 was that, in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the OET Rules, goods specified in Parts I and II of the Schedule to the OET Act when used as raw materials by a manufacturer on its first entry 'in a local area other than that specified in clause (a) above shall not be exigible to tax.' Rule 3 (4) (a) envisages the entry of the goods in a local area notified as a municipality or municipal corporation or a notified area council, in which case the goods would be exigible to tax at 50 % of the rate to which they are exigible under Rules 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the OET Rules. However, if the entry is in a local area other than municipality, municipal corporation or notified area council then no tax would be leviable. 22. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that its CPP and Smelter Plant are both located in a Gram Panchayat. In fact, this has been acknowledged in the impugned order of the Tribunal where in para-29, it observed as under: '29. The last but not the least contention on behalf of the appellant is that in the impugned order, the ld. ACST has committed error by levying entry tax on the said goods upto 6th November 2000 as both the CPP plant and Smelter plant at Angul are situated within one Gram Panchayat and as provided under Class-B of sub-rule-4 of rule-3 before second amendment of OET Rules, these goods when brought into the said Gram Panchayat to be used as raw material, such goods cannot be levied with entry tax. In our considered opinion, such contention on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable because here we are not concerned with the issue relating to supply of electricity by CPP to its smelter unit but transmission of coal by MCL situated at Talcher to CPP at Angul. This is not the case of any party that coal is being transported to the appellant unit from within the same local area. This is not the case of any party that coal is being transported to the appellant unit from within the same local area. Accordingly, such contention on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable.' 23. However, the above observations of the Tribunal overlook Rule 3 (4) (b) of OET Rules, which clearly states that if such materials are brought into a Gram Panchayat area i.e. an area other than municipal corporation or municipality or a notified area council, it would not be exigible to any tax whatsoever. The question is not whether when the coal brought from MCL in Talcher to the CPP unit of the Petitioner would be exempted from entry tax since that question already stands answered by the fact that coal finds mention in the registration certificate itself. As far as electricity is concerned that is supplied from the CPP to the Smelter plant and, therefore, it is within the same Gram Panchayat. 24. Consequently, question 'b' is also answered in favour of the Petitioner-assessee and against the Department. In other words, it is held that for assessment year 1999-2000, no entry tax was leviable on the purchase by the Petitioner-NALCO of raw materials such as Coal, Caustic Soda, HFO and LDO up to 6th November, 2000 in view of Rule-3 (4) (b) as it existed prior to the second amendment to the OET Rules. 25. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 26. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.