Agricultural produce retains its character after market-making processing, keeping processed tea outside dealer treatment for sales tax purposes.

Processed tea remains agricultural produce where grading and roasting are only incidental processing to make the product marketable and do not create a new commodity with a different identity. Applying that principle, the tea retained its original character for sales tax purposes under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, so the assessee was not treated as a dealer on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether processed tea remained an agricultural produce so as to exclude the assessee from treatment as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Tea leaves which undergo grading and roasting before sale do not cease to be tea merely because some processing is applied. The processing was treated as incidental to making the produce marketable and did not convert the tea into a different commodity. The legal position relied upon was that agricultural produce does not lose its character by such processing when the essential identity remains unchanged, and a person engaged in producing such tea is not treated as a dealer for sales tax purposes on that basis.

Conclusion: Processed tea remained agricultural produce, and the assessee was not liable to be treated as a dealer on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing only makes an agricultural produce marketable without creating a new commodity with a different identity, the original character of the produce is retained for sales tax purposes.

---