TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the sake of convenience called, "the said Act"). 3.. For an understanding of this question it is necessary to see section 2(a) of the said Act which reads as follows: "'Agricultural produce' means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery." 4.. Schedule G of the said Act deals with "Animal husbandry" Serial No. 11 thereunder includes "hides and skins". 5.. The question which had been raised in the writ petitions and which is raised here is whether the term "hides and skins" includes "tanned leather". Mr. Sudhir Chandra has submitted that admittedly the term "tanned leather" has not been used either in the Act or in the Schedule. He admits that under section 2(a), not just the items which have been specified in the Schedule but also an admixture of two or more such items or any of those items in a processed form, would also be included. He, however, submits that tanned leather is not "hides ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the decision in A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC); [1964] 8 SCR 217, held that dressed hides and skins were different goods from raw hides and skins. It may be noted that it was so held in the context of the definition as given in item 7 of the Second Schedule of the said Act, which provided both for raw hides and skins as well as dressed hides and skins. Thus the Act itself made a distinction between raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins. It is on that basis that the court held that they were not the same commodity. 8.. Mr. Sudhir Chandra also placed reliance in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1993] 91 STC 408 (SC); AIR 1994 SC 64. This was a case under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the question for consideration was whether the term "wheat", within the meaning of section 14(i)(iii) of that Act, included "flour, maida and suji" which were derived from wheat. It was held that flour, maida and suji are different and distinct goods from wheat. It was held that flour, maida or suji were not included in the Act and they would not fall within the term "wheat" as defined in the Act. It mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d distinct article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. Based on this authority it was submitted that tanned leather was a different article and a distinctive commodity having a distinctive name, character and use and that tanned leather was a manufactured item. In our view the authority would, if anything be against the appellants. Tanned leather retains its basic character, namely, it remains hide or skin, though there is some change in form and physical appearance. 11.. Lastly, reliance was placed upon the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1963 SC 791. This was a case under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the question was whether the raw oils which were purified but not deodorised in the process of manufacture of vanaspati was covered by the expression "non-essential vegetable oils" in item 12 of the First Schedule of that Act. In this case it was held that processing cannot be equated to manufacture. It was held that the word "manufacture" is generally understood to mean "bringing into existence a new substance" and does not mean merely "to produce some change in a substance". In our view this author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee could be levied. This Court held that to resolve a controversy of this nature one has to seek light from the definition of expression "agricultural produce" as set out in section 2(a) of the Act. This Court held that no resort can be taken to decisions under entirely different statutes, such as the sales tax laws, to find out whether the product were same or two different and independent products commercially so recognised. It was held that it was an indisputable canon of construction that where an expression is defined in the statute, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the expression had to be construed as having the same meaning assigned to it in the dictionary clause of the statute. It was held that "dal" was nothing else but a whole grain split into two-folds in its processed form acquired by manufacturing process and that was therefore an agricultural produce. After so holding this Court held as follows (page 31 of STC): "14. This very conclusion can be reached by a slightly different route. As is well-known, the legislative enactments in the State of U.P. are enacted primarily in Hindi language and its official and authentic translation in Engli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o based upon a Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturer's Licensing Order, 1967, both of which define "khandsari sugar", it had been contended that "khandsari sugar" was a distinct and a separate commodity from "khandsari" as defined in section 2(a) of the said Act and, therefore, no market fee could be levied on "khandsari sugar". This contention was negatived and it was held that "khandsari" was a genus and "khandsari sugar" was a species and in the market both were merely known as "khandsari ". It was held that the word "khandsari" was wide enough to cover "khandsari" produced by any process regardless of its quality or variety. It may be mentioned that a challenge to section 2(a) on the ground that it was discriminatory and violative of article 14 was also repelled. 16.. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Shankar Industries reported in (1993) Supp 3 SCC 361(II). This again was a case under the said Act. The question was whether "gur-lauta", "raskat", "rab-galawat" and "rab-salawat" were "agricultural produce" under the said Act. In this case it was noted that sugarcane was an agricultural produce out of which j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as well as glossary of terms published by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research had been reproduced. He stated that he was merely bringing those portions of the judgment to the attention of the court. In this behalf he showed to the court the paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 (pages 233, 234, 235 and 236 of STC), which read as follows: "6. Turning to coloured leather, we may, at the outset, refer to a very important circumstance referred to by the respondents. When the Central Sales Tax Act came into force on April 1, 1957, a question was raised regarding the meaning of the expression 'hides and skins in dressed state' used in section 14. The matter was referred to the Leather Development Wing of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry which gave the following opinion: 'Hides and skins are obtained from either slaughtered or dead animals. The raw hides and skins thus obtained are known to be in the green state. These are easily pubrescible; if proper precautions are not taken they would easily rot and decay. Since tanneries are not always located very near the source of raw hides and skins, the question of preserving them for a te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and other mechanical purposes. Leather: The skin or hide of animals prepared by tanning, which still retains its original fibrous structure more or less intact, but from which hair or wool may or may not have been removed and which has been treated so as to be imputrescible even after treatment with water. 10.. The earlier glossary of such terms published by the British Standards Institution defines 'dressing' as a 'general term for the series of processes employed to convert certain rough tanned hides and skins and/or crust leather into leather ready for use'. Also, 'leather' is defined as 'a general term for hide or skin which still retains its original fibrous structure more or less intact, and which has been treated so as to be imputrescible even after treatment with water'. The hair or wool may or may not have been removed. Certain skins, similarly treated or dressed, and without the hair removed, are termed 'fur'. The Dictionary of Leather Terminology published by the Tanners' Council of America, describes leather as 'the hide and skin of any animal or any portion of such skin, when tanned, towed or otherwise dressed for use'. 11.. The above definitions show that hides and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Central Sales Tax Act, however, includes within its scope hides and skins until they are 'dressed'. This, as we have seen, represents the stage when they undergo the process of finishing and assume a form in which they can be readily utilised for manufacture of various commercial articles. In this view, it is hardly material that coloured leather may be a form of leather or may even be said to represent a different commercial commodity. The statutory entry is comprehensive enough to include the products emerging from hides and skins until the process of dressing or finishing is done." 18.. Mr. Pradeep Misra submitted that tanned leather would be covered by the definition of the term "agricultural produce" as defined in section 2(a) of the Act. He submitted that it was merely a processed form of "hide and skin". He submitted that cases relied upon by the appellants were of no help as all of them were under taxing statutes and were merely interpreting terms in the context of the definitions given in those statutes. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. In our view it is clear that the interpretation has to be on the basis of the expression "agricultural produc....