Order : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, in exercise of power conferred under Section 55(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the VAT Act’) has referred the following questions of law for decision by this Court under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act, which state as under:- Common questions of law in Tax Case Nos.29/2024 & 44/2024 1. Whether under the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified to hold that applicant dealer is manufacturer u/s-2(n) of the CG Vat Act and the provision of Sec.4-A of the entry tax applies. 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified to rely upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. Shahdol Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. & Others (1994) 18 CTJ, page-71 which is under the MP General Sales Tax Act when the definition of manufacture u/s-2(j) was wide enough even to include collection of sand from river bed. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified to apply the definition of raw material in this case whereas the issue is on manufacture. The CG Vat Act do not define raw material. Questions of law in Tax Case No.27/2024 1. Whether under the facts and the circumstances of the case inspite of accepting that the appellant do not hold explosive license the amount of Rs. 13,10,772/- in the balance sheet as blasting expenses, the Tribunal is justified to hold that this is purchase of explosive. 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified to rely upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. Shahdol Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. & Others (1994) 18 CTJ, page-71 which is under the MP General Sales Tax Act when the definition of manufacture u/s-2(j) was wide enough even to include collection of sand from river bed. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified to conclude that, the appellant has not produced the receipts and expenditure of the contract from Telecommunication consultants Limited. 2. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified to conclude that, the appellant has not produced the receipts and expenditure of the contract from Telecommunication consultants Limited. 2. Since common question of law arises for consideration in these three tax cases, except question Nos.1 & 3, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The aforesaid questions of law arise for decision on the following factual backdrop: - {For the sake of convenience, Tax Case No.27/2024 (M/s. Balajee Minerals v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax) is taken as lead case.} 4. M/s. Balajee Minerals (applicant in Tax Case No.27/2024) entered into agreement for supply of blasting material (explosives) with M/s. Starex Minerals (applicant in Tax Case Nos.29/2024 & 44/2024). The applicant/assessee had filed 1 st & 3 rd quarterly returns on time and 2 nd & 4 th quarterly returns were filed with delay, however, the annual returns were not filed. Show cause notice for assessment was issued to the applicant and documents were filed on behalf of the applicant in which it is shown that the applicant had purchased explosives of Rs. 13,10,772/- and calculated entry tax @ 1%. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the explosives were being used for mining and therefore entry tax was to be collected at enhanced rate as per Section 4A of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976 and accordingly, assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 against which the applicant filed appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10-11-2016 and entry tax on explosives was charged as 1% in place of 10%, thereby, extending the benefit of Rs. 1,19,106/- to the assessee/applicant. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction in case of the assessee, enhanced entry tax under Section 4A of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976 and set aside the order dated 10-11-2016 and restored the assessment order dated 30-12-2015. In the second appeal preferred by the applicant, it was pleaded that the applicant is not the manufacturer and therefore not liable for enhanced rate of tax @ 10% under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act and it was further pleaded that the applicant had never purchased explosives and had paid the amount to M/s. Starex Minerals. In the second appeal preferred by the applicant, it was pleaded that the applicant is not the manufacturer and therefore not liable for enhanced rate of tax @ 10% under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act and it was further pleaded that the applicant had never purchased explosives and had paid the amount to M/s. Starex Minerals. It was found that the applicant itself had shown Rs. 13,10,772/- for purchase of explosives and had paid entry tax @ 1%. The Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. Shahdol v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. and others, (1994) 18 CTJ, page-71 held that mining was a manufacturing activity and proceeded to dismiss the appeal and rectification application was also dismissed whereupon reference application was filed under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act which was also dismissed. However, ultimately, application was filed before this Court for calling upon the Tribunal to make a reference and the Tribunal was directed to make reference upon which this reference has been made and above stated questions of law have been sent by the Tribunal seeking answer by this Court. 5. Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants herein/assessee, would submit that the Assessing Officer solely relying upon the circular dated 30-12-2016 invoked Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act and levied 6% and 10% entry tax wrongly treating the applicant as manufacturer. He would further submit that both the appellate forums affirmed the assessment without adjudicating the core statutory question whether the applicant’s activity constitutes “manufacture” under the VAT Act which is the essential prerequisite for attracting any notification under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act mechanically invoking inapplicable precedent and misleading administrative circulars. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores , (2003) 1 SCC 70 , Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, (2005) 1 SCC 279 , Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M/s. Pio Food Packers, 1980 Supp SCC 174 and that of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Bheraghat Mineral Industries v. Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax , 1987 SCC OnLine MP 270 to buttress his submission. He would further rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Union of India v. M/s. Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 609 and also upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of CCE v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , 2003 (154) ELT 343 SC. As such, the reference be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/Revenue, would submit that Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act was inserted in the statute book with effect from 31-12-1976 and notification under Section 4A dated 29-9-1997 was published in exercise of powers under Section 4A by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh which has been modified by the State of Chhattisgarh on 27-7-2006 and the rate of tax on explosive has been notified in all local areas of Chhattisgarh as 6% and 10% which has not been challenged by the applicant. He would further submit that by virtue of Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act, entry tax is chargeable on entry in local area of goods in the course of business of a dealer for consumption, use or sale of goods specified in Schedule II and consumption, use but not sale of goods specified in Schedule III. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and others , (2021) 11 SCC 705 to support his contention. He would further rely upon the decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others , 1995 SCC OnLine MP 87 . He would also submit that the applicants had purchased ‘explosives’ from outside the local area for use in ‘mining’ making them liable for entry tax under the Entry Tax Act. He would contend that amending the notification dated 29-9-1997, notification dated 27-7-2006 was published making substitution in entry No.3 of Serial No.1 and by the said amendment, enhanced rate of entry tax @ 6% was chargeable on purchase of ‘explosives’ from dealer registered within the State of Chhattisgarh and entry tax @ 10% was chargeable on purchase of ‘explosives’ from other dealer. He would further contend that once goods have been identified as being used mainly for manufacturing, in a particular local area/areas and notification under Section 4A is issued with respect to entry of such goods in the notified local areas, then tax cannot be charged at any other rate specified under Section 4. Since by notification dated 27-7-2006, the rate notified on entry of ‘explosives’ in local areas of Chhattisgarh is 6% and 10%, in absence of challenge to the said notification, the authorities are justified in charging entry tax at any rate other than that notified under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act. As such, the questions of law be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to consider Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act which is Incidence of taxation. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to consider Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act which is Incidence of taxation. It states as under: - “ Section 3 : Incidence of taxation (1) There shall be levied an entry tax,- (a) On the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule – II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and (b) On the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule – III into each local area for consumption or use of such goods but not for sale therein; and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (No. 2 of 2005) who has effected entry of such goods: Provided that no tax under this sub-section shall be levied,- (i) in respect of goods specified in Schedule -II other than the local goods, purchased from a registered dealer on which entry tax is payable or paid by the selling registered dealer; (ii) in respect of goods specified in Schedule -II which after entry into a local area are sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India; (iii) in respect of goods specified in Schedule -III imported from outside the State for consumption or use but which have been disposed of in any other manner; (iv) in respect of goods exempted from entry tax under Section 10; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 9. A careful perusal of Section 3(1)(a) of the Entry Tax Act reveals that entry tax is chargeable on entry in local area of goods in the course of business of a dealer for consumption, use or sale of goods specified in Schedule II and consumption, use but not sale of goods specified in Schedule III. 10.The Supreme Court in Fr. William Fernandez’s case (supra) has held that the charging event arises on entry of scheduled goods into a local area. 10.The Supreme Court in Fr. William Fernandez’s case (supra) has held that the charging event arises on entry of scheduled goods into a local area. It has been further held that charging event is complete as and when goods enter into local area for use, sale or consumption irrespective of its origin, and observed as under: - “ 63. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by this Court in the abovenoted cases. Statutes which are in consideration are the statutes where clear charging provision has been enacted and charging of entry tax is on entry of the scheduled goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale. Thus, the charging event arises on entry of scheduled goods into a local area. Any goods which are entering into a local area of a State whether coming from another local area of State, any other State or outside the country, the charging event is same for all goods entering into local area. We, thus, are of the clear view that charging section is clear, unambiguous and the provisions cannot be read to mean that the imported goods coming from outside the country are excluded from charge of entry tax. No such indication is discernible from any provision of the Act. Charging event is complete as and when goods enter into local area for use, sale or consumption irrespective of its origin. We, thus, are of the view that definition clause, Section 2(d) read with Section 3 does not exclude the charging of the entry tax on goods entering into local area for consumption, use or sale from outside the country.” 11. Similarly, in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra), it has been observed as under: - “5. Section 3 deals with incidence of taxation. Similarly, in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra), it has been observed as under: - “5. Section 3 deals with incidence of taxation. Entry tax shall be levied, (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein, at the rates specified in the Schedule, (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III into each local area for consumption in Schedule III into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw-material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts, but not for sale and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods at the rates mentioned in Schedule III. The provisos contain certain exceptions.” 12. Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act deals with Rate at which entry tax to be charged, and states as under:- “ Section 4 : Rate at which entry tax to be charged (1) The entry tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to goods specified in Schedule – II and Schedule – III at the rates mentioned in the said Schedules : xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 13.Thus, Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act deals with the rate at which entry tax is to be charged. It states that entry tax payable by a dealer shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to goods specified in Schedules II and III at the rates mentioned in the Schedule. ‘Taxable quantum’ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Entry Tax Act is the aggregate of the ‘taxable purchase value’ and the ‘taxable market value’. 14.Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act was introduced in M.P. Act No. 67 of 1976 with effect from 31-12-1976 which deals with provision for entry tax at enhanced rate. ‘Taxable quantum’ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Entry Tax Act is the aggregate of the ‘taxable purchase value’ and the ‘taxable market value’. 14.Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act was introduced in M.P. Act No. 67 of 1976 with effect from 31-12-1976 which deals with provision for entry tax at enhanced rate. It states as under: - “ Section 4-A : Provision for entry tax at enhanced rate on certain goods consumed or used in manufacture of other goods and on packing materials (1) The State Government may, by notification, specify the local area or areas and the goods which are used or consumed in such local area or areas mainly for the manufacture of other goods or as packing materials and may direct that, as from the date specified in the notification and in such manner as may be prescribed, the entry tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to such goods at a rate not exceeding fifty per centum as may be specified in such notification notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 4. (2) On the issue of the notification under sub-section (1), entry tax shall not be chargeable and payable on such goods at any other rate mentioned in any other provisions of this Act.” 15.Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act empowers the State Government to specify the local area or areas and the goods which are used or consumed in such local area or areas mainly for manufacture of other goods. The State Government may direct that from the date specified in the notification and in the prescribed manner, entry tax payable by a dealer shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to such goods at a rate not exceeding 10%. There is non obstante clause in relation to Section 4. On the issue of the notification, entry tax shall be chargeable and payable on the entry of the goods specified at the rate to be prescribed in the notification subject to a ceiling of 10% per annum and not at the rate prescribed in Section 4 of the Schedules to the Act. 16.As such, Section 4A was inserted in the Entry Tax Act with effect from 31-12-1976, imposing enhanced entry tax on entry of notified goods mainly used in manufacture in notified areas. 16.As such, Section 4A was inserted in the Entry Tax Act with effect from 31-12-1976, imposing enhanced entry tax on entry of notified goods mainly used in manufacture in notified areas. The State Government had earlier issued notification dated 29-9-1997, notifying goods, corresponding local areas and enhanced rate of taxation to be charged when such goods entered the notified areas. Under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act, the State of Chhattisgarh had made amendment by notification dated 27-7-2006 making substitution in entry No.3 of Serial No.1, which states as under: - Government of Chhattisgarh Finance and Planning Department (Commercial Tax Department) Mantralaya Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur NOTIFICATION Raipur, Dated 27/07/2006 No.F-10/77/2006/CT/V( 66 ) – In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4-A of Chhattisgarh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (No. 52 of 1976), the State Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification No.A-5-14-97-ST-V (78), dated 29-09-97:- AMENDMENT In the schedule to the said notification- (i) for entry No.3 in column (3) against serial No. 1, the following entries shall be substituted - S. No. Local areas Goods Date Rate of Tax (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. All local areas in the State of Chhattisgarh 3. (i) Explosive – When purchased by a registered dealer under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 from another such registered dealer after payment of tax under the said act. (ii) Explosive – In the situations other than mentioned in (i) above. From the date of publication in official gazette 6% 10% By order and in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh, Sd/- (K.R. Misra) Joint Secretary 17.As such, by notification dated 27-7-2006, enhanced rate of entry tax at 6% was chargeable on explosives purchased from dealers registered within the State of Chhattisgarh and entry tax @ 10% was chargeable on purchase of explosives from other dealers. This rate was made applicable in all local areas in the State of Chhattisgarh. This rate was made applicable in all local areas in the State of Chhattisgarh. 18.The M.P. High Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) has considered Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act and held that on the issue of the notification, entry tax shall be chargeable and payable on the entry of the goods specified at the rate to be prescribed in the notification subject to a ceiling of 10% per annum and not at the rate prescribed in Section 4 of the Schedules to the Act, and observed as under: - “ 11. xxx xxx xxx The intention underlying proviso I is to offer concessional rate of goods specified in Schedule II and all the goods specified in Schedule III other than limestone. Items 3, 13 and 14 of Schedule II which are excluded for the purpose of the proviso are iron and steel, paddy and pulses. Schedule III is in three parts. Part I prescribes 1.5% as the tax for goods specified in Entries 1 to 32, 32-A and 32-B of Part II of Schedule II and 7.75% for foreign and Indian Made foreign liquor. Part II specifies 0.5% as tax in respect of silver and gold ornaments of personal wear and 0.25% in respect of bullion and specie. All goods other than those included in Schedules I and II and parts’ and II of Schedule III carry 1% tax under part III. Many other goods specified in Schedules II and III may be consumed or used as raw materials for manufacture of other goods. The intention of the proviso (i) to Sec. 4(1) of the Act is to offer concessional entry tax in respect of such goods which are so used. That is because any entry caused to be made after manufacture will again be subject to entry tax. Section 4-A contemplates provision for entry tax at enhanced rate on certain goods consumed and used for manufacture of any other goods. It is left to the Government to specify local area and the goods and the rates of tax subject to a limit of 10%. Lime-stone and copper have been specified under the impugned notifications. Section 4-A contemplates provision for entry tax at enhanced rate on certain goods consumed and used for manufacture of any other goods. It is left to the Government to specify local area and the goods and the rates of tax subject to a limit of 10%. Lime-stone and copper have been specified under the impugned notifications. The result is that while a levy number of goods which are consumed or used as raw material for manufacture of other goods carry the ordinary rate of 1% under the Schedule and half percent under the proviso, entry of limestone and copper is taxable at the rate of 10%. This is said to constitute hostile discrimination. This contention is rebutted on behalf of the State. 14. The impugned statutory provision has to be looked at from the perspective of the principles referred to above. The tax rates in respect of entry of goods are specified in Schedule II. The proviso to Section 4(1) prescribes the concessional rate of tax for entry of many of the goods specified in Schedule II and of the goods specified in Schedule III other than limestone. Limestone which is a mineral is treated differently from other minerals. But then the concession provided by the proviso the Section 4(i) is not general in its application. It is only in respect of specified goods which are consumed or used as raw material for the manufacture of other goods. This concession is offered since the entry of the finished goods itself is a separate taxable event. Limestone is treated differently because it is the main raw-material in the production of cement and it is beyond dispute that there are quite a large number of cement factories in the State. This feature relating to limestone distinguishes it from the other minerals which may fall within the ambit of Schedule III. Treating limestone which is used as raw material in the manufacture of cement which is a widespread activity in the State cannot be regarded as an unreasonable classification or a classification having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is also to be noticed that within the sub-group relating to limestone, no further classification has been attempted. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the exclusion of the limestone from the operation of the concession offends the equality clause of the Constitution. It is also to be noticed that within the sub-group relating to limestone, no further classification has been attempted. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the exclusion of the limestone from the operation of the concession offends the equality clause of the Constitution. Point answered accordingly.” 19.Furthermore, in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra), their Lordships of the M.P. High Court considering the provisions of the Entry Tax Act held that the Entry Tax Act provides two legislative schemes in the matter of imposition of entry tax, one scheme which may be regarded as the normal scheme is comprised in Section 3, 4, 9 and related Sections and the second scheme is the one comprised in Sections 3, 4A and 12, and observed as under: - “26. The provisions of the Act clearly reveal two legislative schemes in the matter of imposition of entry tax. One Scheme which may be regarded as the normal scheme is comprised in Sections 3, 4, 9 and related sections. The second scheme is the one comprised in Sections 3, 4-A and 12. The normal scheme deals with goods specified in Schedule II and III subject to the exactions and concessions provided under the statutory provisions for which rates of tax are prescribed in Schedules II and III subject to power of the State Government under Section 9 to modify the rates which is subject to the limitation contained in the proviso. Section 4-A takes certain local areas and certain goods from outside the purview of the rate specified in shedules II and in subject to the amendatory power of the State Government. Section 12 takes certain categories of persons dealt with under Section 3(2) outside the purview of the rate of tax specified in Schedules II and III, subject to the mandatory power of the State Government. The limitation introduced on the power of the State Government under first proviso to Section 9(1) relates only to the rates of tax specified in Schedule II and III which in turn are applicable only in cases not governed by Sections 4-A and 12. The limitation introduced on the power of the State Government under first proviso to Section 9(1) relates only to the rates of tax specified in Schedule II and III which in turn are applicable only in cases not governed by Sections 4-A and 12. By the alternative scheme contemplated under Section 4-A and Section 12, entries of certain goods in certain areas or entry caused to be made by persons falling under certain categories are excluded from the operation of the rates of tax specified in Schedules II and III and, therefore, must necessarily be outside the purview of Section 9. Rates of tax contemplated under Sections 4-A and 12 are prescribed by the State Government by notifications issued under those sections and not by notifications issued under Section 9(1) of the Act. Necessarily the limitation introduced on the power of the State Government by the first proviso to Section 9(1) can apply only to the exercise of power under Section 9(1) and not, to he power under Sections 4A and 12. The rates of tax originally specified in the Schedules ranged from ¼%to 7¾%. Under Section 9, the State Government can increases the rate of tax from time to time subject to limit of 25% in the aggregate. Necessarily, in regard to a variety of goods, 10% would far exceed this limit. Nevertheless, the legislature under Section 4-A imposed a distinct ceiling of 20% on the entry of goods covered by those provisions. This supports our view that the first proviso to Section 9(1) has no application to the notifications contemplated under Section 4-A or 12. We, therefore, reject the contention that the impugned notifications being violative of the first proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act are beyond the competence of the State Government the point is answered accordingly.” 20. Similarly, in the matter of Mysore Cement Ltd. and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , 2003 SCC OnLine MP 479 the notification issued under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act was unsuccessfully challenged. In the matter of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others , 2008 SCC OnLine MP 660 the M.P. High Court, discussing the complete scheme of the Entry Tax Act, affirmed the principle of law laid down in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) and Mysore Cement Ltd. (supra), and observed as under: - “ 200. In the matter of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others , 2008 SCC OnLine MP 660 the M.P. High Court, discussing the complete scheme of the Entry Tax Act, affirmed the principle of law laid down in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) and Mysore Cement Ltd. (supra), and observed as under: - “ 200. As far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of the several notifications issued by the State, mostly under section 4A of the Act, on the ground that few persons and goods have been selected for the purposes of imposing higher rate of tax, is concerned, the issues stand concluded by the judgments of this court in the cases of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of M. P. AIR 1996 MP 116 and Mysore Cement v. State of Madhya Pradesh 143 STC 432 (MP) ; (2003) 2 STJ 615 wherein prescriptions of such higher rates under section 4A were held to be valid.” 21. As such, from the perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 3, 4 and 4A of the Entry Tax Act and in light of the principles of law laid down in Fr. William Fernandez’s case (supra) and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra), it is quite vivid that once goods have been identified as being used mainly for manufacturing, in a particular local area/areas and notification under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act is issued with respect to entry of such goods in the notified local areas, then tax cannot be charged at any other rate specified under Section 4. In the case in hand, notification dated 27-7-2006 has been issued by the State Government under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act notifying the rate on entry of ‘explosives’ in local areas of Chhattisgarh as 6% and 10%, therefore, in absence of challenge to the said notification, the authorities are absolutely well justified in charging entry tax at the rate specified in the notification dated 27-7-2006 issued under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act. 22. 22. In light of the above-stated legal analysis, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants in Mahalaxmi Stores case (supra), Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), M/s. Pio Food Packers case (supra) and Bheraghat Mineral Industries (supra) on the point that ‘mining’ and ‘explosives’ do not fall under the definition of ‘manufacture’ under Section 2(n) of the VAT Act are clearly distinguishable on facts. Further, the decisions relied upon on behalf of the applicants in M/s. Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd.’s case (supra) and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.’s case (supra) are totally inapplicable to the facts of the case wherein the issue involved was, whether removal of ash from coal by washing it, is a process of manufacture or not, which is not an issue involved in the case in hand before us, as once a good, mainly used for manufacturing in a particular area, is notified under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act, the concession under first proviso to Section 4 will not be available, even if such good is used for manufacturing. 23. In that view of the matter, the questions of law are answered as under: - • Once goods have been identified as being used mainly for manufacturing, in a particular local area/areas and notification under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act is issued with respect to entry of such goods in the notified local areas, as in the instant case, notification under Section 4A has been issued on 27-7- 2006 by which the rates notified on entry of ‘explosives’ in local areas of Chhattisgarh are 6% and 10%, tax cannot be charged at the rate specified under Section 4. Therefore, in absence of challenge to the said notification, the authorities are obliged to charge entry tax at the rates specified in the notification under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act dated 27-7-2006, i.e. at the rate of 6% and 10%. 24. The questions are answered accordingly and all the three reference cases stand finally disposed of.