Common parlance test bars treating processed Robinson barley as barley for sales tax classification.

Robinson barley, after technical processing and fortification with ingredients such as iron and calcium, acquired a distinct commercial identity and was no longer treated as the same commodity as barley under the common parlance test. It therefore could not claim classification as barley or cereals for first-point sales tax treatment at 4%, and it also failed to qualify as declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. The challenge to the tax classification was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Robinson barley was covered by the notification as barley/cereals taxable at the first point of sale at 4%, and whether it could be treated as the same commodity as barley for tax classification.

Analysis: The notification under the sales tax law treated cereals as a specified class of goods, and barley was relied upon as a cereal within that class. The dispute turned on whether Robinson barley remained barley in commercial understanding or had become a distinct commercial commodity after processing and fortification. The Court applied the common parlance test and distinguished authorities where processing did not change the commercial identity of the goods. It held that Robinson barley underwent technical processing and addition of ingredients such as iron and calcium, and therefore was not the same commodity as barley. On that basis, it could not claim the same first-point tax treatment as barley and also could not be treated as declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion: Robinson barley was not the same as barley and was not taxable at the first point of sale at 4% as barley/cereals; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing and fortification give a commodity a distinct commercial identity, it is classified according to its separate market understanding and not as the original commodity for sales tax purposes.

---