Mere purification is not manufacture: filtration of mustard oil failed to qualify for sales tax exemption and the writ was barred by laches.

Filtration of raw mustard oil into pure mustard oil was held not to amount to manufacture for sales tax exemption under the section 9(4) scheme, because the process only purified the same product and did not bring into existence a new and different commodity. The wider statutory definition of manufacture could not be applied mechanically to the exemption notification. The challenge also failed on delay, as the writ petition was filed after prolonged unexplained inaction and was therefore barred by laches.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether filtration of raw mustard oil into pure mustard oil amounts to manufacture so as to qualify for sales tax exemption under the notification issued under section 9(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether filtration of raw mustard oil into pure mustard oil amounts to manufacture so as to qualify for sales tax exemption under the notification issued under section 9(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Analysis: The exemption scheme under section 9(4) and the notification had to be read in light of the production of goods contemplated by that provision. The wider definition of manufacture in section 2(22) could not be mechanically applied to the exemption scheme. The process in question merely purified raw mustard oil and did not bring into existence a new and different product; the raw material and the finished product remained mustard oil, though of better quality.

Conclusion: The process of filtration did not amount to manufacture for the purpose of the exemption scheme and the claim for sales tax exemption was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Analysis: The adverse decision had been taken long before the writ petition was filed, and no satisfactory explanation was accepted for the prolonged inaction. The petitioner had slept over the challenge for several years, which made the invocation of writ jurisdiction inequitable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was also barred by laches.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the denial of sales tax exemption failed both on merits and on delay, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under a scheme framed under section 9(4), the decisive test is whether the process results in production of goods within the meaning of the scheme itself, and a mere purification that does not create a new product does not constitute manufacture for that purpose.

---