Distinct commodities rule keeps dressed hides and skins taxable on inter-State sale; refund claim left open for want of proper pleading.

Raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins were treated as different commodities, so the inter-State sale of dressed hides and skins remained taxable. The court accepted the settled distinction between the two articles and rejected the challenge to the levy on that basis. On reimbursement or refund, it noted the statutory provisions and prescribed procedure governing relief, but declined to decide the issue because there was no proper pleading or claim before it. The tax challenge therefore failed, while the grievance relating to reimbursement or refund was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether dressed hides and skins were the same commodity as raw hides and skins so as to avoid tax on inter-State sale, and whether the petitioner could claim reimbursement or refund of tax under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The assessment was challenged on the ground that tanning and dressing did not change the identity of the goods and that tax had already been suffered on raw hides and skins. The Court noted that the law was settled that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are different articles of merchandise, and therefore the levy on the inter-State sale of dressed hides and skins could not be faulted. As to reimbursement or refund, the Court referred to the statutory provisions enabling such relief and the prescribed procedure under the rules, but declined to decide the question because no proper pleading or claim was before it.

Conclusion: The challenge to the tax levy failed, and the petitioner's grievance regarding reimbursement or refund was left open.

---