Forest produce classification: processed rubber sheets from latex remain forest produce and attract forest development tax.

Rubber sheets derived from latex obtained from rubber trees were treated as forest produce under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 because the statutory term "caoutchouc" covered natural rubber and latex. Processing the latex into sheets by coagulation, sulphuric acid treatment and smoking did not create a different commodity; it merely preserved the same substance and made it marketable. The commercial parlance test used in sales tax matters was held inapplicable to the definition of forest produce. On that reasoning, rubber sheets remained forest produce and were liable to forest development tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubber sheets of various grades supplied by the State or the Forest Plantation Corporation constituted forest produce within the meaning of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and were liable to forest development tax.

Analysis: Caoutchouc in the statutory definition covered natural rubber and latex. Latex obtained from rubber trees and converted into sheets by coagulation, sulphuric acid treatment and smoking did not become a different commodity; the processing merely preserved the same substance and rendered it marketable. The commercial parlance test evolved for sales tax matters was held inapplicable to the definition of forest produce.

Conclusion: Rubber sheets remained forest produce and were liable to forest development tax.

---