TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (5) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per : R.S. Pathak, J.] : - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court holding that the turnover of pineapple fruit purchased for preparing pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans is not covered by Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. The respondent, Messrs. Pio Food Packers ("the assessee"), carries on the business of manufacturing and selling canned fruit besides other products. In its return for the year 1973-74 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 the assessee claimed that a turnover of Rs. 3,84,138-89 representing the purchase of pineapple fruit was not covered by Section 5A(1)(a) of the Act. It was asserted that the pineapple was converted into pineappl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Tribunal found in favour of the assessee, and the third member found in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue then applied in revision to the High Court and the High Court has, by its judgment dated 24th January, 1978, maintained the order of the Tribunal. 3. It appears that the pineapple purchased by the assessee is washed and then the inedible portion, the end crown, skin and inner core are removed, thereafter the fruit is sliced and the slices are filled in cans, sugar is added as a preservative, the cans are sealed under temperature and then put in boiling water for sterilisation. Is the pineapple fruit consumed in the manufacture of pineapple slices? 4. Section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act envisages the consum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before us by the parties, and in each of them the same principle has been applied : Does the processing of the original commodity bring into existance a commercially different and distinct article? Some of the cases where it was held by this Court that a different commercial article had come into existence include Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. V. The State of Bombay and Others (where raw tobacco was manufactured into bidi patti), A Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. The State of Madras (raw hides and skins constituted a different commodity from dressed hides and skins with different physical properties), The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tabacco Factory (raw tobacco manufactured into chewing tobacco) and Ganesh Trading Co., Kamal v. State of Haryana an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is certainly a change in the commodity. But it is no more drastic a change than the change which takes place in milk from pasteurising, homogenizing, adding vitamin concentrates, standardising and bottling". It was also observed : "..................there is hardly less difference between cotton in the field and cotton at the gin or in the bale or between cotton seed in the field and cotton seed at the gin, than between a chicken in the pen and one that is dressed. The ginned and baled cotton and the cotton seed, as well as the dressed chicken, have gone through a processing stage. But neither has been "manufactured" in the normal sense of the word. Referring to Anheuser-Busch Brewing-Association v. United States the Court said :....