1973 (8) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.. The respondent-company is the Kerala Premo Pipe Factory Ltd., a Government undertaking. The main business of the factory consists of the manufacture of prestressed and reinforced concrete pipes of various sizes and length. During the assessment year 1965-66, they manufactured 700 mm. pipes, 16 ft. in length and weighing 1 1/2 tons. These pipes are put to multifarious uses, namely, for pillars, for channels, for engineering and construction purposes, for water supply schemes, road culverts, under tunnels, spouts of irrigation channels, cross masonry works, drainage schemes, etc. During the assessment year the factory had a gross and net turnovers of Rs. 11,94,086.69 and Rs. 11,76,395.14 respectively. There is no controversy over the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense." This decision refers to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C.)., where betel leaves were held not to come within the category of "vegetables". Following the latter decision, this court in Krishna Iyer v. State of Kerala[1962] 13 S.T.C. 838.  and in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Mammootty[1970] 26 S.T.C. 122; 1970 K.L.T. 142. held that green ginger and pine-apple are not vegetables. Both sides agree to this approach to find out the answer. These pipes are used for taking water from reservoirs to storage tanks and from there to various distributing centres ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... supply and sanitary purposes in private and public buildings. A similar question arose for consideration in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1972] 29 S.T.C. 487.  In that case, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and supply of pipes which were marketed under the trade name "hume pipes". The bulk of the pipes produced by the petitioner was reinforced cement concrete pipes. They also manufactured prestressed concrete pipes for water supply. These products were sought to be taxed by the sales tax department as sanitary fittings at 7 per cent. The assessee contended that the pipes manufactured and supplied by it are not sanitary fittings, but are unclassified goods taxable at the rate specified under the chargin....