Manufacture requires a distinct commercial commodity; tamarind seed dehusking and powdering did not create one, so purchase tax failed.

Processing tamarind seeds by dehusking and powdering did not amount to manufacture under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the resulting product retained the same commercial identity as the original commodity. The Court applied the test that manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct commercially recognised article; a mere change in form, colour, or appearance is insufficient. As tamarind seeds and tamarind pappu were found to be qualitatively identical and both yielded starch, purchase tax under section 6 was not attracted and the assessment on that footing was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether dehusking and powdering tamarind seeds results in manufacture of a new commercial commodity so as to attract purchase tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The test is whether the original commodity is consumed in a process that brings into existence a commercially distinct product. If the processed article retains the same commercial identity and the activity results only in a change of form, no manufacture is involved. On the facts, tamarind seeds and tamarind pappu were found to be qualitatively identical, both yielding starch, with the only difference being colour and external form. The conversion of the seeds into powder also did not create a new article with a different commercial identity.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was not attracted; the assessment based on that footing was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A process does not amount to manufacture unless it brings into existence a new and distinct commercially recognised commodity; a mere change in form or appearance, without change in commercial identity, is insufficient.

---