JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
1. In this petition petitioner has prayed for the relief for refund of Rs. 1,98,541.75, which has been charged as sales tax on coal ash between December 11, 1987 to June 30, 1990 with interest at 24 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till its payment. The submission of the petitioner is that recovery on coal ash was in contravention of the provision of the Act. Sales tax is not payable on coal ash. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent, National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd., purchases the coal and pays sales tax in all forms of coal excluding the charcoal. The respondent-mill charge the sales tax at 4 per cent on each bill of the coal ash purchased by the petitioner, it was opined by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on prayer being made by the respondent-mill. The petitioner’s submission is that coal and coal ash are different articles and according to the petitioner if sales tax has already been paid on coal and the said sales tax-paid coal is used for fuel purposes no sales tax can be levied on coal ash which comes out in this process. Respondent No. 1, mill, is registered with the Sales Tax Department and claimed exemption on entire sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,59,377 as total sale of coal ash during this period was Rs. 39,84,426 which is including the sales tax charged from the petitioner during this period. Refund has not been made of the tax collected on coal ash. Collection made by the respondents is illegal. The amount has been retained unauthorisedly by the respondent-mill, as such writ petition has been filed.
2. In the return filed by the respondents, the prayer made has been opposed. Under the Sales Tax Act, tax on coal is on the first point of purchase. Coal ash is a residue of coal left after it is burnt and the respondent purchased the coal after payment of sales tax, therefore, entitled to recover it from the buyer of the coal ash. Reimbursement is not called for as per clarification (R-l) issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner. The controversy whether coal ash is a different commodity than the coal is settled by the Full Bench in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. . It has been held that coal ash is different commodity than the coal, it would, therefore, be liable to tax at the residuary rate. In that event, the petitioner would be required to pay tax at a higher rate than what he has paid to the respondent. The petitioner is misconceived. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The decision of the apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 1 stands superseded by legislative enactment. The respondent collected the tax and it was part of the sale price, thus, burden has been rightly passed on to the buyer in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax.
3. This controversy stands concluded by the Full Bench in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. , in which it has been held that the coal ash is a different commodity and sales tax can be exacted separately on the coal ash as such buyer was required to pay the sales tax. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in this petition in view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court. Writ petition stands dismissed.
4. No costs.