1963 (3) TMI 29 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court holds processed tobacco by beedi manufacturers still raw under tax law, rejects challenge.

The court ruled in favor of the tax authority, holding that the processed tobacco purchased by beedi manufacturers remained classified as raw tobacco ... - Issues:Interpretation of the term 'raw tobacco' under section 5(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.Classification of processed tobacco as raw tobacco or a manufactured product under section 5(vii).Application of legal principles from previous judgments to determine tax liability on tobacco products.Analysis:The case involved a revision petition challenging the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of beedi tobacco as raw tobacco under section 5(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The respondents, beedi manufacturers, argued that the tobacco they purchased was not raw tobacco but a processed form, subject to tax under section 5(vii) on the sale of manufactured products. The Tribunal considered affidavits stating that the tobacco underwent processing steps like drying, pounding, and sieving before sale, concluding it was not raw tobacco. However, the State contended that these processes did not transform the tobacco into a different manufactured product.In analyzing the issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving chewing tobacco to determine the scope of manufacturing processes that would classify a product under section 5(vii). It was established that mere soaking and drying of tobacco did not change its classification unless additional processes resulted in a substantially different product. The court also cited another case where tobacco processing steps were deemed insufficient to alter the raw tobacco's nature, aligning with the principle that manufacturing must lead to a commercially different article.Additionally, a judgment from the Allahabad High Court was considered, emphasizing that a manufacturing process need not change the article's nature but must create a different commercial product. However, in the present case, the focus was on whether the processed tobacco remained raw tobacco under section 5(viii) or became a manufactured product under section 5(vii. The court concluded that the processing steps applied to the tobacco did not alter its classification, upholding tax liability under section 5(viii) and rejecting the respondents' contentions.Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and restoring the authority's ruling without costs. The judgment clarified the distinction between raw tobacco and manufactured products, emphasizing the need for substantial changes to classify a product under specific tax provisions.