TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seed dhal in a sum of Rs. 1,66,268. The petitioner contended that the tamarind had already suffered tax at the purchase point. He also contended that the tamarind seed dhal is obtained by roasting the same. This is for the purpose of preserving from decay and making it marketable. The Commercial Tax Officer took the view that tamarind seed and tamarind seed dhal are two different commodities and accordingly levied tax on the said turnover at the rate of 4 per cent under section 5(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner carried the matter before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. Relying upon the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in a similar case, the Assistant Commissioner held that they are not two differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lai [1956] 7 STC 541, the Madras High Court was considering the scope of proviso to section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act which excludes from tax liability under the Act, sale of agricultural and horticultural produce. The question before the court was whether arecanuts after they were peeled and the kernels thereafter sliced, boiled and dried change their character so as to cease to be agricultural or horticultural produce. The Madras High Court held that the arecanuts were only subject to the minimum processing absolutely necessary for their sale and therefore retained their character as horticultural produce within the meaning of the proviso to section 2(i). The principle laid down by the Madras High Court is that where any ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same purpose as a cooking medium and has identical food value as refined groundnut oil. It was further pointed out that there was no use to which the groundnut oil could be put for which the hydrogenated oil could not be used nor was there any to which the hydrogenated oil could be put for which the raw oil could not be used. The Supreme Court has observed that hydrogenated oil still continues to be "groundnut oil" notwithstanding the processing which is merely for the purpose of rendering the oil more stable thus improving its keeping qualities for those who desire to consume groundnut oil. In that view of the matter it held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction of the purchase price of the kernel or groundnut under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm of grain is not edible, whereas parched rice and puffed rice are edible. It was held that rice in husk is paddy. When it is removed from husk, the husk and rice become separately taxable under the Act. But, there are no separate entries for rice and rice reduced into an edible form by heating or parching without any addition of ingredients or appreciable changes in chemical composition and that the term "rice" is wide enough to include rice in its various forms whether edible or inedible. In Singh Trading Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [1979] 44 STC 1, the question before a Division Bench of our High Court was whether cashewnut and kernel are not two different commercial commodities and are not separately taxable. Under the Andhra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereafter canning it and adding sugar to preserve it. It was laid down that where there was no essential difference in identity between the original commodity and the processed article it was not possible to say that one commodity has been consumed in the manufacture of another. Although it has undergone a degree of processing, it must be regarded as still retaining its original identity. The test laid down in this case is that even after processing the commodity must retain its original identity. In Udata Narasimha Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1982] 51 STC 126 the question before a Division Bench of our High Court was whether cereals and pulses, ravva obtained from rice or wheat and fried gram dhal, were declared goods under....