Sikri, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. The appellant is a joint stock limited liability private company carrying on the business of mining coal and trading in coal and coke as owner of the mines and the business known as West Chirimiri Colliery at Chirimiri in the district of Surguja in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant applied for registration as a dealer under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956) — hereinafter referred to as “the Central Act” — in Form A prescribed by the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 — hereinafter referred to as “the Central Rules”. In that application it described the business as “wholly — mining and wholesale distribution of coal mainly”, and in Column 16 listed the following goods or classes of goods purchased by it in the course of inter-State trade for use in the production of coal:
“Explosives, lubricants, fuel, timber, machinery, colliery stores, etc.”
It was granted a certificate of registration dated June 27, 1957, and the business was described as “wholesale distribution of coal” and the only classes of goods included were lubricant oil, fuel, and explosives.
3. On July 2, 1957, the appellant wrote to the Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh, stating that only lubricant oil, fuel and explosives had been mentioned in the certificate of registration but there were other stores which ought to have been included. The Sales Tax Officer replied that the expression “in the manufacture of goods” denotes only such goods as were consumed or directly utilised in the process of manufacture or formed part as an ingredient of the finished goods such as, plants, machinery, tools, stores, etc., and ingredients of buildings for staff, conveyances or parts of it for transport of goods, etc. could not form a part of the manufacturing process and hence could not be specified in the certificate of registration in order to purchase goods for use in the manufacture of goods for sale.
4. Dissatisfied with the reply of the Sales Tax Officer, the appellant applied to him for inclusion of various other items of goods, and the Sales Tax Officer amended the certificate adding various other categories. Another amendment was granted by the Sales Tax Officer on or about November 25, 1957 adding fuel and diesel oil. The appellant was still not satisfied and filed another application on or about May 15, 1958, praying for inclusion of 27 more items. The Sales Tax Officer amended the certificate again including 14 items, but excluded iron and steel, heavy and light, medicines and insecticides, welding sticks, sanitary fittings, spare parts for motor vehicle including tyres and tubes, furniture, stationery and motor trucks. The appellant pressed his claim by another application dated August 21, 1959, but the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated September 30, 1959, refused to accede to the request. The Sales Tax Officer informed the appellant as follows:
“Iron and Steel is a ‘declared' commodity vide Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and hence cannot be specified in the Registration Certificate for purposes of manufacture of goods for sale.
As regards motor trucks and spare parts for motor vehicles including motor tyres and tubes, I have to repeat that as they are not directly used for the production of coal they cannot be specified in your registration Certificate.”
5. Thereupon the appellant filed a revision under Section 39(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (Madhya Pradesh Act 2 of 1959). The Commissioner of Sales Tax by his order dated August 16, 1960, upheld the order of the Sales Tax Officer. On February 6, 1961, the appellant filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the application by its order dated October 12, 1961.
6. Eight items, namely, iron and steel, medicines and insecticides, welding sticks, sanitary fittings, spare parts for motor vehicles, including tyres and tubes, furniture, stationery and motor trucks were the subject-matter of the revision and the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but in view of the decision of this Court in Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar the learned counsel for the appellant pressed his case in respect of four items only, namely, sanitary goods, spare parts for motor vehicles including tyres and tubes, furniture and motor trucks. In the Indian Copper Corporation case this Court had occasion to construe Rule 13 of the Central Rules, and it held that “locomotives and motor-vehicles, accessories and spare parts for motor-vehicles and locomotives, and tyres and tubes for motor-vehicles, laboratory fittings used for sampling and analysis of the ore and other raw materials in the mining operations and in the process of manufacture for sale and cane baskets used for carrying ore and other material used in the course of manufacture, should be specified in the certificate of registration”. But this Court rejected the claim of the Indian Copper Corporation in respect of household, hospital equipment with furnishings and fittings, and medical supplies, stationery and cane baskets used for collecting refuse to protect the health and cleanliness in the colony of workmen. Shah, J., speaking for the Court, observed in respect of locomotives and motor vehicles as follows:
“It appears that the process of mining ore and manufacture with the aid of ore copper goods in as integrated process and there would be no ground for exclusion from the vehicles those which are used for removing goods to the factory after the mining operations are concluded. Nor is there any ground for excluding locomotives and motor-vehicles used in carrying finished products from the factory. The expression ‘goods intended for use in the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale' may ordinarily include such vehicles as are intended to be used for removal of processed goods from the factory to the place of storage.”
7. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the above observations contends that the appellant here was also carrying on the business of manufacturing coke and selling it, and he says that for that reason the appellant required motor trucks and spare parts for motor vehicles, including tyres and tubes, for transporting coal to the factory for manufacturing coke. But on looking through the record, we find that this is the first time that this point is being made in the course of these proceedings. In the application for registration before the Sales Tax Officer no mention is made that the appellant is carrying on the business of manufacturing coke. In its application under Article 226 in the opening para it only mentions that it is carrying on the business of mining coal and trading in coal and coke, as the owner of the mines. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any documentary evidence to show that the appellant was actually manufacturing coke, and, therefore, we cannot allow him to raise this new point at this stage.
8. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant requires these motor trucks for transporting coal to the railway siding at the nearest railway station. He says that the appellant has to deliver coal F.O.R railway siding, in order to fulfil its commitments it must transport coal to the railway siding. He says that one cannot carry on the activity of mining without sending coal to the railway station for being loaded on the trains. He urges that we should regard the railway siding as similar to a warehouse or place of storage. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. We cannot read the expression “in mining” in Rule 13 of the Central Rules to mean in the business of mining. The goods must be intended for use only in the actual activity of mining which would include raising the coal and storing it in heaps or in warehouses. But in our opinion the expression cannot be extended to include delivering the coal to a siding at the railway station. Therefore, the High Court, was right in holding that these two items, namely, spare parts of motor vehicles including tyres and tubes, and motor trucks cannot be included in the Registration Certificate of the appellant.
9. As far as furniture and sanitary fittings are concerned, these are covered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in Indian Copper Corporation case. In dealing with stationery, Shah, J. observed that “stationery also is not intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or for mining operation. Use of stationery undoubtedly facilitates the carrying on of a business of manufacturing goods or of processing goods or even mining operations; but the expression ‘intended to be used' cannot be equated with ‘likely to facilitate' the conduct of the business of manufacturing or of processing goods or of mining”. These observations apply to the items “furniture” and “sanitary fittings”. These two items are likely to facilitate the business of mining but it cannot be said that they are intended to be used in mining.
10. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.