9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while discussing the facts of the case. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinct individuality of their own, one different from the other. It would therefore be wrong to assume, as the High Court has done, that these two goods are the same. What happens is that when goats and sheep are converted into meat, "other goods" within the meaning of the section come into being. It is true that to attract section 5A, two other ingredients are also to be satisfied, namely, consumption and manufacture. Consumption is a word of wide import. It denotes the taking in of something, to convert that something into another. Here the slaughter of the animals and their conversion into meat is the consequence of consumption of goats in a legal sense. In such conversion, a process of manufacture can also be inferred. The important ingredient of this section, of course, is the bringing into existence of other goods, after consumption and manufacture, which are distinct from the original goods. Lifeless mutton is, by any standard, "other goods" different from "goats and sheep". 5.. The High Court rested its conclusion on a decision of the same High Court reported in [1978] 41 STC 364 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers). Without a detailed discussion, the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out of raw prawns. The court held that there was neither consumption nor manufacture involved in making the prawn pulp and that in the process of conversion, goods distinct from raw prawn was not produced when prawn pulp came into being. In [1978] 41 STC 364 (Ker) (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers), the goods involved were pineapple and sliced pieces of pineapple. They are clearly the same goods. This Court approved this finding when the State took the matter in appeal before this Court. 6.. This Court held in Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. State of Bombay [1960] 11 STC 698 (SC) that conversion of raw tobacco into bidis by removing stem and dust which in turn is required for the manufacture of bidis amounted to consumption of raw tobacco attracting tax liability. More or less similar is the case before us. There is clearly a process of consumption in converting goats into mutton by which goods different from the original goods are produced. 7.. The Karnataka High Court had to consider an identical question as the one now raised before us in K. Cheyyabba v. State of Karnataka [1980] 45 STC 1 with reference to section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt that a different commercial article had come into existence include Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. State of Bombay [1960] 11 STC 698 (SC) (where raw tobacco was manufactured into bidi patti), A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. Stage of Madras [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC) (raw hides and skins constituted a different commodity from dressed hides and skins with different physical properties), State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory [1966] 17 STC 316 (SC) (raw tobacco manufactured into chewing tobacco) and Ganesh Trading Co., Karnal v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 623 (SC) (paddy dehusked into rice). ..." It cannot be doubted that pineapple fruit when converted into slices does not lose its identity or becomes a new product. Both of them are known as pineapple in the commercial circle as also in common parlance. That is not the case here. 9.. Considerable support was sought by the respondents from a decision of this Court in Chiranjit Lal Anand v. State of Assam [1985] 60 STC 89 (SC). That case related to an item called "meat on hoof". In that case the dealer had submitted a tender to supply among others "meat on hoof" to the Central Reserve Police Units within the State of Assam. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
