9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d distinct goods from chilli, coriander seeds and turmeric. The revision petitioner/assessee contended that since [1987] 67 STC 170 (Ker) (Ambika Provision Stores v. State of Kerala) has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Namputhiris Pickle Industries v. State of Kerala [1994] 92 STC 1, the findings of the Tribunal on the above issue are to be reversed. When the matter came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court the learned Government Pleader contended that the Full Bench decision is no longer good law, in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 91 STC 408. Reliance was also placed by the learned Government Pleader on Krishna Chander Dutta (Spice) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1994] 93 STC 180 (SC) and Chillies Exports House Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1997] 225 ITR 814 (SC); (1997) 5 SCC 157. In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader, these tax revision cases were referred by the Bench for consideration of a larger Bench by a common order dated September 1, 1997. 3.. In [1987] 67 STC 170 (Ambika Provision Stores v. State of Kerala) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Kerala v. Namputhiris Pickle Industries [2000] 117 STC 312; (1998) 6 KTR 414. It reads as follows: "The question in these cases is whether chillies and chilli powder are different products, both exigible to sales tax. The chilli powder is produced from chillies on which sales tax under the same entry has been paid. Whether, the chilli powder is the result of a process of manufacture which the chillies have undergone and whether chilli powder is a commodity commercially distinct from chillies are questions of fact to answer which the party proposing that the chilli powder is also exigible to tax must place relevant evidence before the appropriate taxing authority. In the instant case, the sales tax authorities should have placed such material to establish that the chillies underwent some process of manufacture and that the end-product, namely, chilli powder, was recognised by those who dealt in it as being distinct from chillies. They did not do so. Upon this ground alone, therefore, we decline to interfere with the judgments under appeal. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs." 6.. Shri V.V. Asokan, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed in the relevant notification in the same manner as black and white pepper it was held the turmeric and turmeric powder must also be treated as same goods. In the light of the above, the learned Government Pleader contended that as far as turmeric and turmeric powder are concerned, they cannot be treated as same goods, in the absence of a provision in the Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act similar to the notification referred therein. 8.. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that there is no justification in taking the view that turmeric and turmeric powder are different goods. According to the learned counsel, if the test of substantial identity and character is applied, turmeric and turmeric powder are to be taken as one and the same. 9. We have gone through the assessment orders and orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. It is seen that no evidence had been adduced by the Revenue in support of its contention. The Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the Revenue merely by following the decision of this Court in [1987] 67 STC 170 (Ambika Provision Stores v. State of Kerala). The Tribunal has not referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxing authority to show that chilli powder was result of process of manufacture which the chillies have undergone and whether chilli powder is a commodity commercially distinct from chillies. 11.. As far as turmeric and turmeric powder are concerned, we are of the view that they are distinct commodities. Turmeric gets consumed when it is powdered and in its place new goods/commodities emerge. The turmeric powder so emerging has a higher utility than the commodity consumed. Commercially speaking turmeric powder is different from turmeric. In State of Karnataka v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1981] 47 STC 369, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a similar issue regarding paddy and rice. It was then observed as follows: "A manufacturer also consumes commodities which are ordinarily called raw materials when he produces semi-finished goods which have to undergo further processes of production before they can be transformed into consumers goods. At every such intermediate stage of production, some utility or value is added to goods which are used as raw materials and at every such stage the raw materials are consumed. Take the case of bread. It passes through the first stage of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
