Manufacture requires a commercially different article; chemist-made medicine mixtures were outside sales tax liability under the statute.

A chemist preparing medicine mixtures on doctors' prescriptions and selling them was not a "manufacturer" for tax purposes because manufacture requires emergence of a commercially different article. The court held that the medicine mixtures did not meet that test, so turnover from their sale was outside section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It further held that a later amendment to entry 39 in the notification could not alter the settled judicial meaning of "manufacturer" in the statute; a delegated notification can exempt additional persons, but cannot expand statutory liability beyond the concept of manufacture.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, a chemist preparing medicine mixtures according to doctors' prescriptions and selling them, was liable to tax as a manufacturer on the turnover of such medicines under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The controlling construction of the term "manufacturer" had already been settled to mean that manufacture requires the emergence of a commercially different article. Medicine mixtures prepared by the assessee did not answer that description. The later amendment to entry No. 39 in the notification did not alter the judicial meaning of "manufacturer" in section 3-A, because a delegated notification cannot change the construction placed on the statutory expression by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The amendment merely exempted a further class of persons and did not create liability for chemists who were otherwise outside the statutory concept of manufacture.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to tax as a manufacturer under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and the answer to the referred question was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

---