STATE Vs. R RAGHURAMA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are revision petitions preferred by the State under S.23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in STA 605 of 1972. STA 66 of 1972 d/.4th Sepr, 1973, and STA 180 of 1973 d/.3rd Sepr, 1973. They involve a common question and they have been argued together. They will be disposed of by this order.

(2.) The respondents are registered dealers under the 'Act', and they own rice mills. They purchase paddy and after milling paddy, the resultant rice is sold. The Commrl Tax Officer brought the purchase turnover of paddy to tax under S.6(i) of the Act. This was upheld in appeal by the Asst Commr of Comml Taxes and on further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held that it could not be construed that mere dehusking of paddy and getting rice amounted to 'manufacture' and on the facts and circumstances it could not be said that there was any consumption of goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale of otherwies, and the imposition of sales tax under S.6(i) was not right. The correctness of this conclusion is challenged in these revision petitions.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Govt Advocate that paddy and rice are two different articles and are not the same and the conversion of paddy into rice amounts to 'manufacture' according to the dictionary meaning or in its grammatical sense as by means of processing, paddy is converted into rice for consumption or utilisation and therefore it must be held that there is consumption of goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or other wise and as such the purchase turnover was liable to tax. Alternatively it is contended that even if it be held that there was no manufacture of goods for sale or otherwise, the assessee has disposed of such goods in a manner otherwise than by sale in the State and therefore the turnover attracted the imposition of tax under S.6(i) of the Act.