COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. JAGAL KISHORE BADRIPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two references under s.44 of the M.P. Gneral ST Act, 1958, by the Board of Revenue, M.P.,Gwalior, at the instance of the CST, M.P. , referring certain question of law, arising out of its composite order in Appeal No. 101-IV of 1969 (State) and Appeal No. 102-IV of 1969 (Central), dt. 20th March, 1970, pertaining to the period from 31st July, 1966 to 31st March, 1966, to the High Court for its opinion, namely :

(2.) THE assessee, Jugalkishore Badriprasad Bankatnagar, is a dealer in Tendu leaves. He has been purchasing Tendu leaves from the State Government in the forest, as well as from the cultivators, and selling the same after drying and packing them in bundles.

(3.) INDEED, mere plucking, drying and collecting of Tendu leaves can, by no stretch of imagination, amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of s. 2(j) of the Act. In CST U.P., Lucknow vs. Harbilas Rai and Sons 1968 21 STC 17, their Lordships, while dealing with similar question, held that the word "manufacture" as defined in s. 2(h) of the U.P. ST Act, 1948, has different shades of meaning, and in the context of Sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. There, the assessee who was a dealer in pig bristles, bought bristles plucked by Kanjars from pigs, boiled them, washed them with soap and other chemicals, sorted them out according to their sizes and colours, tied them in separate bundles of different sizes and despatched them to foreign countries for sale. Even then their Lordships held that the bristles were not manufactured goods within Explanation II (ii) to s. 2(h) of the U.P. ST Act, 1948.