Single-point levy on hides and skins: purchaser using outside tanneries is still treated as a tanner under the taxing rule.

A purchaser of untanned hides and skins who arranges tanning through others may still be treated as a tanner if the business character shows engagement in the tanning trade, even without owning or operating a tannery. The levy on hides and skins under the single-point scheme is governed by the first applicable rule: rule 16(2) applies to purchases of untanned hides and skins by a tanner in the State, and this does not change merely because tanning occurs outside the State. Rule 16(4) applies to a different category and cannot displace rule 16(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person who purchases untanned hides and skins and gets them tanned by others, without owning or operating a tannery himself, is liable to be assessed as a tanner. (ii) Whether rule 16(2) or rule 16(4) governs the levy where hides and skins purchased in the State are tanned outside the State.

Issue (i): Whether a person who purchases untanned hides and skins and gets them tanned by others, without owning or operating a tannery himself, is liable to be assessed as a tanner.

Analysis: Liability depended on the business character of the assessee as a tanner, not on personal ownership of a tannery or on personally carrying out the tanning process. The assessee's main business was purchasing untanned hides and skins, getting them tanned, and selling them. The licensing and the nature of the business showed that the assessee fell within the description of a tanner even though the tanning was done in tanneries not owned by him.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable to be assessed as a tanner.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 16(2) or rule 16(4) governs the levy where hides and skins purchased in the State are tanned outside the State.

Analysis: Section 5(vi) contemplated a single-point levy in respect of hides and skins, and rule 16 fixed the point of taxation. Rule 16(2) covered purchases of untanned hides and skins by a tanner in the State and did not make the levy depend on whether the tanning was done within or outside the State. Rule 16(4) dealt with a different class of cases, namely hides and skins tanned outside the State and sold by the first dealer within the State. The two provisions were not alternatives for the same goods. Reading rule 16(4) as overriding rule 16(2) would contradict the scheme of single-point levy adopted by the rules.

Conclusion: Rule 16(2) applied, and the assessment could not be shifted to rule 16(4).

Final Conclusion: The turnover was validly brought to tax under rule 16(2), and the revision petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For hides and skins subjected to a single-point levy, the taxing point is governed by the rule that first covers the transaction; where a tanner purchases untanned hides and skins in the State, rule 16(2) applies even if the goods are tanned outside the State, and rule 16(4) cannot be read as an alternative or proviso to displace that levy.

---