Differentiation of raw and dressed hides and skins supports valid taxation and revisional correction of erroneous assessments.

Raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are treated as different commercial commodities for sales tax purposes under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the statutory scheme recognises them as separate states of the same goods. Levy on dressed hides and skins is therefore not barred merely because purchase tax was earlier paid on raw hides and skins, and section 15 is not offended. A subordinate assessment based on a view contrary to binding precedent may also be revised as prejudicial to revenue under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revisional action is not invalidated by change of opinion when it corrects an error of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are the same commodity for the purpose of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the levy on dressed hides and skins after purchase tax on raw hides and skins was barred; (ii) whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in exercising suo motu revision under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the ground that the original assessment was prejudicial to revenue and whether the action was vitiated by change of opinion.

Issue (i): whether raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are the same commodity for the purpose of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the levy on dressed hides and skins after purchase tax on raw hides and skins was barred.

Analysis: The scheme of sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 treats the declaration of goods of special importance and the restrictions on taxation as separate matters. Merely placing different goods in the same entry does not make them one and the same commodity. The words "hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state" indicate legislative recognition of two different types of goods. The prior precedent conclusively held that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are different commercial commodities, and that levy on dressed hides and skins does not offend section 15 even if tax was paid earlier on raw hides and skins.

Conclusion: The two kinds of hides and skins are different commodities, and the impugned levy was valid. The issue is answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in exercising suo motu revision under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the ground that the original assessment was prejudicial to revenue and whether the action was vitiated by change of opinion.

Analysis: Section 35 empowers revision where a subordinate order is prejudicial to revenue. An order inconsistent with the binding law declared by the apex Court is prejudicial to revenue because lawful tax due to the State has not been levied. Since the original assessment had proceeded on an erroneous view contrary to the governing legal position, the revisional power was available. The plea of change of opinion fails because the reassessment followed the binding declaration of law and not a mere reconsideration of the same view.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional action was valid and was not vitiated by change of opinion. The issue is answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision applications fail because the commodities are distinct and the revisional interference to correct an assessment prejudicial to revenue was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the law recognises raw and dressed hides and skins as different taxable commodities, a levy on dressed hides and skins is not barred by earlier taxation on raw hides and skins, and a subordinate assessment contrary to binding precedent may be revised as prejudicial to revenue.

---