https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148677 Cleaning, de-husking and breaking arhar dal into smaller pieces did not create a commercially distinct commodity, so the dal retained its identity and the purchase was treated as the first purchase of the original goods, not a second purchase liable to tax under section 3-D(1). The court also held that availability of appeal, revision and reference was not an absolute bar to relief under article 226, particularly where the levy raised a recurring issue affecting a large class of traders. The assessment order was quashed and writ relief was granted. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2013 18:01:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148677 Cleaning, de-husking and breaking arhar dal into smaller pieces did not create a commercially distinct commodity, so the dal retained its identity and the purchase was treated as the first purchase of the original goods, not a second purchase liable to tax under section 3-D(1). The court also held that availability of appeal, revision and reference was not an absolute bar to relief under article 226, particularly where the levy raised a recurring issue affecting a large class of traders. The assessment order was quashed and writ relief was granted. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148677