Identity of agricultural produce retained after processing; writ relief remained available despite alternative statutory remedies.

Cleaning, de-husking and breaking arhar dal into smaller pieces did not create a commercially distinct commodity, so the dal retained its identity and the purchase was treated as the first purchase of the original goods, not a second purchase liable to tax under section 3-D(1). The court also held that availability of appeal, revision and reference was not an absolute bar to relief under article 226, particularly where the levy raised a recurring issue affecting a large class of traders. The assessment order was quashed and writ relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether broken down dal retained the identity of the arhar dal purchased by the dal mills so as to make the petitioner's purchase a second purchase and not the first purchase liable to tax under section 3-D(1); (ii) whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred relief under article 226.

Issue (i): Whether broken down dal retained the identity of the arhar dal purchased by the dal mills so as to make the petitioner's purchase a second purchase and not the first purchase liable to tax under section 3-D(1).

Analysis: The levy under section 3-D(1) applied only to the first purchase. The dal purchased by the petitioner was found to be the same commodity as the arhar dal bought by the dal mills, after cleaning, de-husking and breaking into smaller pieces. Those processes did not change the chemical composition or bring into existence a new and different commercial commodity. The commodity retained its essential character, and the difference was only in size and grading of particles. Such treatment was held to be processing and not manufacture.

Conclusion: The petitioner's purchase was not the first purchase of a new commodity, and the turnover was not liable to purchase tax under section 3-D(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred relief under article 226.

Analysis: The availability of appeal, revision and reference was considered, but alternative remedy was treated as no absolute bar to writ relief. The controversy concerned a recurring levy affecting a large class of traders, and postponing adjudication was not considered conducive to justice.

Conclusion: Relief under article 226 was maintainable despite the alternative remedies.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed, with costs to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cleaning, de-husking and breaking an agricultural produce into smaller particles do not create a commercially distinct commodity, the process is not manufacture and the resulting goods retain the identity of the original commodity for tax purposes; the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not necessarily preclude writ relief.

---