Common trade identity controls sales tax classification, and processed "lisa sugar" lost exemption as ordinary sugar.

Sales tax classification depends on the common or commercial identity of the commodity, not its scientific or technical description. On the admitted facts, "lisa sugar" was a distinct manufactured product with additives, marketed under a different name and used only for confectionery, so it had lost the identity of ordinary sugar; it was therefore not covered by the sugar exemption in entry 31-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Because it did not fall within any classified entry, the turnover was assessable as an unclassified commodity under section 5(1), and the tax assessment was treated as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether "lisa sugar" answered the description of "sugar" in entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and was therefore exempt from tax; (ii) whether, on the facts, the turnover of "lisa sugar" was liable to be assessed under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as an unclassified commodity.

Issue (i): whether "lisa sugar" answered the description of "sugar" in entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and was therefore exempt from tax.

Analysis: The proper test for construing entries in sales tax legislation is the popular or commercial meaning of the commodity and not its scientific or technical description. On the admitted facts, "lisa sugar" was not sold or understood as ordinary sugar in common trade or household use. It was a distinct product prepared with additives, marketed under a different name, and used exclusively for confectionery. The ordinary commodity of sugar had thus lost its identity in the manufactured article.

Conclusion: "lisa sugar" was not "sugar" within entry 31-B and the claim of exemption failed.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts, the turnover of "lisa sugar" was liable to be assessed under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as an unclassified commodity.

Analysis: Since "lisa sugar" was held not to fall within the exempt entry and also did not answer any other classified entry, it had to be treated as an unclassified article for the purpose of assessment. The direction to levy tax under section 5(1) followed from that classification.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 5(1) was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the revenue's position was upheld on both the exemption question and the rate/classification question.

Ratio Decidendi: In sales tax statutes, an article is to be classified according to its common or commercial identity, and a processed or composite product loses the benefit of an exemption entry for the parent commodity if it is no longer understood in trade as that commodity.

---