Manufacture requires a new commercial commodity; polishing or colouring old furniture before sale does not meet that test.

Polishing or colouring old or second-hand furniture before sale did not amount to manufacture under the Bombay Sales Tax Act because, despite the wide statutory definition of manufacture, the decisive test was whether a new or different commercial commodity emerged. Old furniture that was merely polished or coloured remained the same furniture and did not become a distinct commercial product. The activity therefore was not manufacture, and the person carrying it on was not a manufacturer for purposes of the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether polishing or colouring old or second-hand furniture, if necessary before sale, amounted to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The statutory definition of manufacture was wide and included producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise processing, treating, or adapting goods. Even so, the decisive requirement was that the activity must result in the emergence of a new or different commercial commodity or article. Old furniture purchased and later polished or coloured remained the same old or second-hand furniture and did not change into a distinct commercial product.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture and the respondent was not a manufacturer for the purposes of the Act.

---