Clarification of butter into ghee is not taxable processing, and turnover cannot be aggregated without express statutory authority.

Mere boiling of butter into ghee was not a "process" within Section 5(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, because the term was construed in its ordinary sense and did not extend to simple clarification without added ingredients or manufacture. The Court also held that turnover from the alleged processing activity could not be combined with general turnover under Section 5(1)(c), as the Act contained no express authority for such aggregation and taxing provisions must be strictly construed. The assessment was therefore unsustainable, both because the activity was not taxable as processing and because the turnovers could not be merged to create liability at the lower threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether boiling butter into ghee amounted to a process within the meaning of Section 5(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether turnover from such alleged processing could be added to the dealer's general turnover under Section 5(1)(c) so as to attract liability under Section 5(1)(b).

Issue (i): Whether boiling butter into ghee amounted to a process within the meaning of Section 5(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The expression "process" was not defined in the Act, and therefore it was construed in its ordinary and popular sense. Mere boiling of butter without addition of any ingredient was held to be only a method of clarification and not a series of actions, continuous treatment, chemical process, or process of manufacture. In a taxing statute, a doubtful meaning could not be enlarged by implication.

Conclusion: Boiling butter into ghee did not amount to a process within Section 5(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

Issue (ii): Whether turnover from such alleged processing could be added to the dealer's general turnover under Section 5(1)(c) so as to attract liability under Section 5(1)(b).

Analysis: Section 5 contained no express authority for combining turnover from processing with ordinary turnover to reach the taxable limit under Section 5(1)(b). The word "gross" in Section 5(1) was taken to mean turnover without deductions under Section 6, and not as authorising aggregation of distinct classes of turnover. The Court applied the rule that a taxing provision must be construed strictly and any ambiguity must operate in favour of the subject.

Conclusion: The turnover from the alleged processing business could not be added to the general turnover for fastening liability under Section 5(1)(b).

Final Conclusion: The assessment was unsustainable because the activity was not a taxable process and, in any event, the relevant turnovers could not be aggregated to create liability at the lower threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory language, a taxing entry cannot be expanded by treating mere clarification as processing or by aggregating distinct categories of turnover to impose liability.

---