Manufacture in sales tax law requires a commercially different article; processing pig bristles did not meet that test.

Cleaning, boiling, washing, sorting and bundling pig bristles did not amount to manufacture under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because the process did not bring into existence a commercially different article. The bristles remained the same commercial commodity before and after processing, and no new product emerged. A process that only improves appearance, uniformity or marketability without changing the essential commercial identity of the goods is not manufacture. On that basis, the assessee was not a manufacturer within Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h), and the sales were not taxable on the footing that they were deemed to occur within Uttar Pradesh.

---

---

Issues: Whether cleaning, boiling, washing, sorting and bundling pig bristles amounted to manufacture within Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, so that the sales made outside Uttar Pradesh were deemed to have taken place within Uttar Pradesh and were taxable.

Analysis: The applied test in sales tax law was whether the process applied to the goods brought into being a commercially different article. The bristles purchased from the Kanjars and the bristles exported after washing, sorting and bundling remained the same commercial article. No new commodity emerged, and the labour applied did not transform the goods into something essentially different. Processes that merely improve appearance, uniformity or marketability, without changing the essential commercial identity of the goods, do not amount to manufacture.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture, and the assessee was not a manufacturer within Explanation II(ii) to section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The sales were not taxable on that basis, and the finding was against the Revenue.

---