G R KULKARNI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 23 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales-tax Act by the Board of Revenue. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:

(2.) FOR the purposes of answering these Questions a few facts have to be narrated. The assessee is one G. R. Kulkarni. He is a railway contractor, who takes on contracts the digging and preparing of gitti (metal) and collecting it at the railway sidings according to his contracts and who sells this metal for constructions of roads and as ballast etc. The short question, therefore, is whether the breaking of boulders into metal (gitti) is a process of manufacture.

(3.) WE may mention that the case arose before the passing of Act 20 of 1953, which introduced a section defining 'manufacture'. That definition says that manufacture includes any process or manner of producing, preparing or making any goods. In our opinion, even without this definition the word 'manufacture' in relation to other parts of this Act would bear the identical meaning. The definition does nothing more than clear the ground, so that no dispute may hereafter exist. Now, the gist of the matter in this case is that according to the definition of 'taxable quantum' the present assessee would be liable to pay a tax on a turnover of Rs. 5,000/- if he was himself manufacturing or producing any goods for the purposes of sale: (See the definition of 'taxable quantum' in Section 2 (i) (a) of the Sales-tax Act.)The contention of the assessee is that he was neither manufacturing nor producing any goods for the purposes of sale. He contends that breaking boulders into gitti is not a manufacturing process and that gittis are not 'produced' within the meaning given to it by the definition. He relies upon -- 'north Bengal Stores, Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Bengal', 1950-1 STC 157 (A); and -- 'state of Bihar v. Chrestian Mica industries Ltd. , 1956-7 STC 626: (AIR 1957 Pat 184 (B ). On the other side reference is made to --'state of Madhya Pradesh v. Wasudeo', 1955-6 STC 30 (C),