TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (4) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, is whether goat and sheep and the meat got after slaughtering them are the same for the purpose of sales tax in the State. The High Court, disagreeing with the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held them to be the same goods. 2.. It is the admitted case in these appeals that the respondents purchase goat and sheep for slaughtering them and then sell the meat they get after such slaughter. It is also admitted that live stock will be goods within the meaning of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short). The respondents submitted nil returns claiming exemption on the sales turnover of meat and skin. Assessments were completed accepting these nil returns. Subsequently the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en goats and sheep are slaughtered and converted into meat for sale. The assessees' contention is that he is only processing live goat or sheep into mutton by killing them and cutting them into pieces and that in this process there was neither consumption nor a manufacture nor production of "other goods". 4.. Before dealing with the authorities cited at the Bar, it would be useful to consider, unaided by authorities, the question whether "goats and sheep" and "mutton" are the same goods known to commercial circles and in common parlance. We will see how a common man understands these expressions. If a person goes to a butcher's shop and asks for mutton he will not be given goats nor will he be satisfied with goats. Equally so when he inten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion; and we have again given careful consideration to the elaborate arguments in regard to the processes involved in the transaction and their effect in the light of the provisions of the section-especially as one of us was not a party to the earlier Division Bench ruling. We are clearly of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in the view that it took, and that it cannot be said that there was a 'consumption' resulting in the 'manufacture' of 'other goods' within the meaning of the section The High Court then referred to a decision of the American Supreme Court, reported in 207 US 556, (Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States) and the decisions reported in [1967] 20 STC 261 (Ker) Joseph v. State of Kerala) and [1977] 40 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court had to deal with prawn pulp made out of raw prawns. The court held that there was neither consumption nor manufacture involved in making the prawn pulp and that in the process of conversion, goods distinct from raw prawn was not produced when prawn pulp came into being. In [1978] 41 STC 364 (Ker) (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers), the goods involved were pineapple and sliced pieces of pineapple. They are clearly the same goods. This Court approved this finding when the State took the matter in appeal before this Court. 6.. This Court held in Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. State of Bombay [1960] 11 STC 698 (SC) that conversion of raw tobacco into bidis by removing stem and dust which in turn is required for the manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the article produced is regarded in the trade. by those who deal in it, as distinct in identity from the commodity involved in its manufacture. Commonly, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, and indeed there may be several stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of procesing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e support was sought by the respondents from a decision of this Court in Chiranjit Lal Anand v. State of Assam [1985] 60 STC 89 (SC). That case related to an item called "meat on hoof". In that case the dealer had submitted a tender to supply among others "meat on hoof" to the Central Reserve Police Units within the State of Assam. In that case, the dealer was assessed for the purchase of meat on hoof which is a name used mainly by the military for a "live goat". The contention of the dealer was that since meat was exempted from sales tax by the Assam Act, "meat on hoof" should also be exempted from assessment. This Court after considering the contention in the peculiar facts of that case, held that meat on hoof would also come within the e....