Tea cultivation inputs may qualify as manufacturing goods where growing and processing form one integrated business activity.

Goods used in the cultivation and crop-protection stages of tea growing were held to have a direct and necessary connection with the manufacture of tea for sale under section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules. The business was treated as an integrated activity in which tea cultivation and tea processing formed a continuous and inseparable chain, rather than separate agricultural and manufacturing operations. On that basis, goods required for cultivation and protection of tea crops could properly be specified in the registration certificate as goods used in manufacture or processing for sale.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods required for the cultivation and crop-protection stages of tea growing could be included in the petitioner's Central sales tax registration certificate as goods intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.

Analysis: Under section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, goods may be specified in the registration certificate if they are intended for use as raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The petitioner's business was not confined to agriculture alone but formed one integrated activity of growing tea and manufacturing tea. The agricultural stage was not independent of the manufacturing stage, because tea leaves grown in the plantation required immediate processing before tea could come into existence as a marketable product. The Court treated the agricultural and manufacturing stages as a continuous and inseparable chain of business activity, and held that goods used in the cultivation and protection of tea crops had a direct and necessary connection with the ultimate manufacture of tea.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the specified goods from the registration certificate was not justified, and the petitioner was entitled to have those goods included.

---