JUDGMENT : 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur dated 07.06.2012 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Durg dated 19.04.2011 was affirmed. 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner is engaged in the execution of a works contract and a registration certificate was issued by the Commercial Tax Department under Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 on 19.04.2011. The petitioner moved an application to include certain articles in the registration certificate according to provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The articles which the petitioner mentioned in his application are Cement, Sand, Boulder, Murum, Gitti, Steel, Aggregates, Bitumen, Compressors, Plant & Machinery, Mining Machinery, Mixture Concrete, Pumping Set, Pay Loader, Lab Equipment, Moulds, Hot Mix Plant, Bitumen Tank, Fuel Tank, Roller Machine, Dumpers, Stone Crusher, Exploder, Generator, Drilling Machine, Weigh Bridge, Pavour (Mach & Hydraulic), Vibrator Roller, Crane, Loader, Grader Cum Excavators, Shunting Plates, Paint, Pipe and Fittings, Bitumen Sprayer, Oil & Lubricants, Tools, Mach Spares, Locomotives & Motor Vehicle tyre, Tubes of locomotives & Motor Vehicle, Cane Baskets & parts of accessories etc. on the ground that these articles and machinery are being used in processing goods for sale and construction of the road. The Commercial Tax Officer vide order dated 19.04.2011 partly allowed the application and added Soil (Murum) in the registration certificate but for the rest of the articles, the application was rejected. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg and vide order dated 07.06.2012, the same was rejected on the ground that Truck, Tripper, Dumper, JCB, Crane, Dozer etc. are not directly used in the execution of the works contract and the work can be done without using all these articles or goods. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this court to the provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (R & T) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this court to the provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (R & T) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’). The provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Act, 1956 read thus:- “Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be three percent, of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section.” He would further submit that the goods referred to in sub-section 1 are goods of class or classes specified in the certificate of registration for use by the petitioner in the manufacture or processing or for sale or generation or distribution of electricity. He would further submit that goods include containers or other materials, packaging of goods or classes of goods etc. He would further argue that according to Rule 13 of Act, 1957, the goods may be materials, processing materials, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, which are being used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. He would also submit that Truck, Tripper, Dumper, JCB, Crane, Dozer and other articles mentioned in the application are being used in the execution of works contracts or for the construction of roads, therefore, these articles are an integral part of the manufacturing process and the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg have committed an error of law in rejecting the application. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur & Anr. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur & Anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1310 , the judgment passed by High Court of Patna in the matter of M/s Larson & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna reported in 1994 SCC Online Pat 302 and the judgment passed by High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salt Lake Charge & Ors reported in MANU WB 1396 2014. He would further contend that in the matter of J.K. Cotton (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with similar issues where the authority declined to specify certain articles in the registration certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 10 and 11 categorically held that under Rule 13 of the Act, 1957 read with Section 8(3)(b) of the Act, 1956 mere intention to use the goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale will not be a sufficient ground for a specification; the intention must be to use the goods as raw materials, as processing materials, as machinery, as plant, as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, as accessories, as fuel, as lubricants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if a process is so integrally related to the ultimate manufacture of goods that without that process or activity, the manufacture may, even if theoretically possible be commercially inexpedient, goods intended in the activity specified in Rule 13 qualify for special treatment. Paras 10 and 11 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein below:- 10. Section 8 (3) (b) authorises the Sales Tax Officer to specify, subject to any rules made by the Central Government, goods intended for use by the dealer in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. By Rule 13 the Central Government has prescribed the goods referred to in s. 8 (3) (b): such goods must be intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or generation or distribution of power, and the intended use of the goods must be as specified in Rule 13. By Rule 13 the Central Government has prescribed the goods referred to in s. 8 (3) (b): such goods must be intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or generation or distribution of power, and the intended use of the goods must be as specified in Rule 13. It is true that under Rule 13, read with s. 8(3)(b) mere intention to use the goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, will not be a sufficient ground for specification: the intention must be to use the goods as raw materials as processing materials, as machinery, as plant, as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, as accessories, as fuel or as lubricants. A bare survey of the diverse uses to which the goods may be intended to be put in the manufacture or processing of goods, clearly shows that the restricted interpretation placed by the High Court is not warranted. The expression "in the manufacture of goods" would normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, in our judgment, fall within the expression "in the manufacture of goods". For instance, in the case of a cotton textile manufacturing concern, raw cotton undergoes various processes before cloth is finally turned out. Cotton is cleaned, carded, spun into yam, then cloth is woven, put on rolls, dyed, calendered and pressed. All these processes would be regarded as integrated processes and included "in the manufacture" of cloth. It would be difficult to regard goods used only in the process of weaving cloth and not goods used in the anterior processes as goods used in the manufacture of cloth. To read the expression "in the manufacture" of cloth in that restricted sense, would raise many anomalies. Raw cotton and machinery for weaving cotton and even vehicles for transporting raw and finished goods would qualify under Rule 13, but not spinning machinery, without which the business cannot be carried on. In our judgment, Rule 13 does not justify the importation of restrictions which are not clearly expressed nor imperatively intended. Raw cotton and machinery for weaving cotton and even vehicles for transporting raw and finished goods would qualify under Rule 13, but not spinning machinery, without which the business cannot be carried on. In our judgment, Rule 13 does not justify the importation of restrictions which are not clearly expressed nor imperatively intended. Goods used as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, or as accessories in the manufacture or processing of goods, in mining, and in the generation and distribution of power need not, to qualify for special treatment under S. 8(1), be ingredients or commodities used in the processes, nor must they be directly and actually needed for "turning out or the creation of goods." 11. In our judgment if a process or activity is so integrally related to the ultimate manufacture of goods so that without that process or activity manufacture may, even if theoretically possible, be commercially inexpedient, goods intended for use in the process or activity as specified in Rule 13 will qualify for special treatment. This is not to say that every category of goods "in' connection with" manufacture of or "in relation to" manufacture, or which facilitates the conduct of the business of manufacture will be included within Rule 13. Attention in this connection may be invited to a judgment of this Court in which it was held that vehicles used by a Company (which mined ore and turned out copper in carrying on activities as a miner and as a manufacturer) fell within Rule 13, even if the vehicles were used merely for removing ore from the mine to the factory, and finished goods from the factory to the place of storage. Spare parts and accessories required for the effective operation of those vehicles were also held to fall within. Rule 13. See Indian Copper Corporation Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar and Ors(1). In the matter of M/s Larson & Toubro (supra), there was an application by the dealer to include cranes, trippers and trucks in the certificate which was denied by the Sales Tax Officer, the High Court of Patna relying on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. K. Cotton (supra), set aside the impugned order and allowed the application from the date of application moved by the petitioner. In the matter of Nagarjuna Constructions Co. In the matter of Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Ltd. (supra), a similar issue was raised to include machinery, tools, and equipment such as hydraulic mobile cranes, concrete mixers, welding machines, pumps, computers, vehicles etc. in the certificate of registration under CST Act to claim concessional rate of tax on inter-state purchase, the High Court of Calcutta held that a works contract is one and indivisible and involves incorporation of different goods to bring into existence a new end-product. For example, a building contract, inter alia, involves the mixing and treatment of cement, sand, stone chips, etc. to produce concrete, the blending of cement, sand and water for plastering, the plastering of bricks, casting, fabrication of steel rods and girders, the erection of the structure and the installation fittings, some of which may be embedded in the construction and it has been further held that there is no reason why activities involved in a works contract should not constitute manufacture. It has been also held that articles which are integral to the process of manufacture would be liable for concessional tax, even though such articles may not be incorporated in the manufactured end-product. Paras 80, 81 and 82 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein below:- 80. A works contract is one and indivisible and involves incorporation of different goods to bring into existence a new end-product. For example, a building contract, inter alia, Involves the mixing and treatment of cement, sand, stone chips, etc., to produce concrete, the blending of cement, sand and water for plastering, the plastering of bricks, casting, fabrication of steel rods and girders, the erection of the structure and the installation fittings and fixtures, some of which may be embedded in the construction. The goods Incorporated in the construction, in which property passes, lose their original character What is produced is something totally different. There is no reason why activities involved in a works contract should not constitute manufacture. 81. The goods Incorporated in the construction, in which property passes, lose their original character What is produced is something totally different. There is no reason why activities involved in a works contract should not constitute manufacture. 81. If after the amendment of the Constitution it has become possible for the State to levy sales tax on the value of goods incorporated in a works contract, which as illustrated above, lose their original character, in the sarne way in which sales tax is leviable on the price of goods and materials supplied in a building contract, there is no reason why those goods which are required in the process of execution of a works contract, should not be liable for concessional sales tax. The distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Majumder in respect of the judgments in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer MANU/SC/0269/1964: [1965] 16 STC 563 (SC), Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal v. Phelps and Co. (P.) Ltd. MANU/SC/0611/1971: [1972] 29 STC 101 (SC), Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Unior of India MANU/SC/0395/1980: [1981] 47 STC 124 (SC) is no distinction in the eye of law. Facts are bound to differ from case to case. What is relevant is the issue of law that has been laid down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that articles used in the process of manufacture would be liable for concessional tax, even though such articles may not be incorporated in the manufactured end-product. 82. In the case of a works contract too, articles integral to the process of manufacture such as tools, plant, machinery, equipment, for example concrete mixers, pumps, hydraulic mobile cranes, vehicles, computers is used for preparing plans designs, etc., vehicles used for carrying construction materials, etc., and other similar articles would be eligible for concessional tax even though such goods may not actually be incorporated in execution of the contract. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that the registration certificate was issued under Rule 5(1) of CST (R&T) Rules, 1957 by the Commercial Tax Officer on 09.02.2011 for certain articles and afterwards no amendment can be carried out in such registration form. He would further submit that the articles which were not part of the contract cannot be included in the registration certificate. He would submit that the registration certificate was issued under Rule 5(1) of CST (R&T) Rules, 1957 by the Commercial Tax Officer on 09.02.2011 for certain articles and afterwards no amendment can be carried out in such registration form. He would further submit that the articles which were not part of the contract cannot be included in the registration certificate. He would further argue that trucks, trippers, dumpers, JCB, cranes, Dozer, etc. are not directly involved in the construction of the road and without these equipment or articles, a works contract may be completed. Therefore, the Commercial Tax Officer as well as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg rightly declined to add the description of articles given by the petitioner in his application. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.K. Cotton (supra) and would submit that articles detailed in the application are not used in the manufacture of goods. He would further contend that Truck, Tripper, Dumper, JCB, Crane, Dozer, etc. are not directly involved in the construction of the road and thus the commodities are not used in the process and therefore, cannot be added to the registration certificate. He has placed reliance on paras 8, 9 and 10 of the aforementioned judgment. Relevant paras are reproduced herein below:- “8. Section 13 conferred power upon the Central Government, to make rules on several matters including enumeration of goods or class of goods used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. In exercise of this power, Rule 13 was framed by the Central Government, which as amended read at the material time, as follows : "The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (3) of section 8 which a registered dealer may purchase, shall be goods intended for use by him as raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power." 9. The High Court confirmed the exclusion of drawing and photographic materials on the ground that those materials are required merely in the preparation of designs which though necessary for turning out textile goods cannot be said to be goods intended for use in the manufacture of goods. In the view of the High Court, designing is a process distinct from the process of manufacture i.e. of making or fabricating raw materials by hand, art or machinery, and work into forms convenient for use. But without a design of the goods sought to be manufactured in a factory which is geared to production of goods of uniform pattern, it would be impossible to attempt manufacture of goods on a commercial scale. The production itself has to be of a set pattern, and deviation from the design prepared would be impermeable. That without the use of drawing and photographic materials, designing of patterns would, if not impossible, be very difficult, is conceded. But the High Court was apparently of the view, and that view is supported by counsel for the Sales Tax' Officer, that goods intended for use in the manufacture of goods or processing of goods for sale must of necessity be goods which are used as "ingredient or commodity in the creation of goods", or which are "directly and actually needed for turning out or making of the goods". 10. Section 8 (3) (b) authorises the Sales Tax Officer to specify, subject to any rules made by the Central Government, goods intended for use by the dealer in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. By Rule 13 the Central Government has prescribed the goods referred to in s. 8 (3) (b): such goods must be intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or generation or distribution of power, and the intended use of the goods must be as specified in Rule 13. By Rule 13 the Central Government has prescribed the goods referred to in s. 8 (3) (b): such goods must be intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or generation or distribution of power, and the intended use of the goods must be as specified in Rule 13. It is true that under Rule 13, read with s. 8(3) (b) mere intention to use the goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, will not be a sufficient ground for specification: the intention must be to use the goods as raw materials as processing materials, as machinery, as plant, as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, as accessories, as fuel or as lubricants. A bare survey of the diverse uses to which the goods may be intended to be put in the manufacture or processing of goods, clearly shows that the restricted interpretation placed by the High Court is not warranted. The expression "in the manufacture of goods" would normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, in our judgment, fall within the expression "in the manufacture of goods". For instance, in the case of a cotton textile manufacturing concern, raw cotton undergoes various processes before cloth is finally turned out. Cotton is cleaned, carded, spun into yam, then cloth is woven, put on rolls, dyed, calendered and pressed. All these processes would be regarded as integrated processes and included "in the manufacture" of cloth. It would be difficult to regard goods used only in the process of weaving cloth and not goods used in the anterior processes as goods used in the manufacture of cloth. To read the expression "in the manufacture" of cloth in that restricted sense, would raise many anomalies. Raw cotton and machinery for weaving cotton and even vehicles for transporting raw and finished goods would qualify under Rule 13, but not spinning machinery, without which the business cannot be carried on. In our judgment, Rule 13 does not justify the importation of restrictions which are not clearly expressed nor imperatively intended. Raw cotton and machinery for weaving cotton and even vehicles for transporting raw and finished goods would qualify under Rule 13, but not spinning machinery, without which the business cannot be carried on. In our judgment, Rule 13 does not justify the importation of restrictions which are not clearly expressed nor imperatively intended. Goods used as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, or as acces- sories in the manufacture or processing of goods, in mining, and in the generation and distribution of power need not, to qualify for special treatment under S. 8(1), be ingredients or commodities used in the processes, nor must they be directly and actually needed for "turning out or the creation of goods."” 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the documents present on record. 6. From a perusal of documents and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is evident that a registration certificate was issued to the petitioner according to Rule 5(1) of CST (R&T) Act, 1957 on 09.02.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is indulged in the construction of roads etc. and in that process, he had plied various types of equipment, machinery including Trucks, Trippers, Dumpers, JCBs, Cranes, Dozers, Mixers etc. whereas, in the registration certificate, these articles were not included earlier, therefore, he moved an application to include these commodities which was declined by the Commercial Tax Officer, Durg and only Soil (Murum) was allowed to be included in the certificate as the same is the raw material used for construction of the road. The revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg on the ground that in the absence of these equipment or commodities or articles, construction of a road can be carried out. Rule 13 of the Act, 1957 describes goods for certain purposes and it includes machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Rule 13 of the Act, 1957 describes goods for certain purposes and it includes machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Section 8(3)(b) of the Act, 1956 says that a dealer would be entitled to get a rebate in the tax for goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration according to rules made by the Central Government to be used by him in manufacture or processing of goods for sale or mining or in general or distribution of electricity. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 8(3)(b) of Act 1956 and Rule 13 of the Act, 1957 has clearly held that the intention must be to use the goods as raw materials, as processing materials, as machinery, as plant, as equipment, as tools, as spare parts, as stores, as accessories, as lubricants, as fuels etc. and the restricted interpretation is not warranted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in no uncertain terms that articles used in the process of manufacture would be liable for concessional tax, even though such articles may not be incorporated in the manufactured end-product. The High Court of Patna in the matter of M/s Larson & Toubro (supra) and the High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Nagarjuna Constructions (supra) while dealing with similar issues included machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuels, lubricants etc. in the registration certificate according to the provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of Act, 1956 and Rule 13 of Act, 1957. 8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements discussed above and the facts of the present case, it appears that the authorities have committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner to include the articles mentioned in the application as stated above. Consequently, the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg is hereby set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act, 1956 is hereby allowed. The amendment would be effective in the registration certificate of the petitioner from the date of application. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is hereby allowed.