STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAGHURAMA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for considera,tion in these appeals by certificate is whether the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') are liable to pay purchase tax under S. 6 (i) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the act') on the turnover consisting of the price paid by them for purchasing paddy for the purpose of converting it into rice for sale, in their respective rice mills.

(2.) The assessees are owners of rice mills in the State of Karnataka and are registered dealers under the Act. In the course of their business, they purchase paddy and after milling paddy sell the resultant rice. During the assessment years, the assessees purchased paddy from agriculturists who were not liable to pay sales tax. The assessing authority under the Act levied on the asses-see in each of these cases purchase tax on the purchase turnover of paddy under S. 6 (i) of the Act. The appeals filed by the assessees against the said assessments were dismissed by the appellate authority. The Karna,taka sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessees against the orders of the appellate authority except the one filed by the assessee who is the respondent in CA no. 1805 of 1975 holding that the conversion of paddy into rice did not involve any manufacturing process and that the purchase turnovers of paddy in those cases were not liable to tax under S. 6 (i) of the Act. In the case of the assessee who is the respondent in ca No. 1805 of 1975, the Tribunal held that the turnover was liable to be taxed as he had manufactured boiled rice, out of the paddy purchased by him.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decisions of the Tribunal, the state Government filed revision petitions before the High Court under S. 23 (1) of the Act in the first four cases and the assessee filed a revision petition in the last case. The High Court after holding that the turnovers in question were not liable to tax under S. 6 (i) of the Act dismissed the petitions filed by the State Government and allowed the petition of the assesses who is the respondent in ca No. 1805 of 1975. Thereafter the high Court granted by a common order a certificate of fitness in all these cases to prefer appeals before this Court to the State Government. On the basis of the said certificate, these appeals have been filed by the State Government against the orders of the High Court. Since these appeals involve a common question of law, they are disposed of by this common judgment.