Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Bechu Ram Kishorilal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 223 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1976]38STC236(All)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentBechu Ram Kishorilal
Appellant AdvocateThe Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateD.R. Bajpai and ;H.P. Agarwal, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. the process of adding scent to ordinary til oil did not bring about a new commodity.3. we have heard sri b. d. agarwal, chief standing counsel. he has placed reliance on a decision reported in gael industries private ltd. v. commissioner, sales tax 1971 u.p.t.c. 796. the test applied in this case was of common experience. there is no evidence on the record to show that the oil underwent some change by addition of scent. the question whether the hair-oil sold by the assessee as a result of addition of scent became a new commercial commodity, applying the test of user or common experience, is essentially a question of fact. in the absence of any positive material, we do not think that the view taken by the judge.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The following question of law was referred by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur :

Whether the mixing of scents in ordinary til oil amounts to manufacture of perfumed hair-oil

2. The assessing authority recorded a finding that the assessee purchased oil and after adding scent to it sold it as hair-oil. The appellate authority accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that mere addi-sion of scent does not bring out a different commodity. Aggrieved by the view taken by the appellate authority the Commissioner, Sales Tax, filed revision, which was dismissed. The Judge (Revisions) recorded the following finding :

As held in Harbilas Rai's case [1968] 21 S.T.C. 17 (SC.) referred to above, the word 'manufacture' has various shades of meaning and, in the context of the sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. The process of adding scent to ordinary til oil did not bring about a new commodity.

3. We have heard Sri B. D. Agarwal, Chief Standing Counsel. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in Gael Industries Private Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax 1971 U.P.T.C. 796. The test applied in this case was of common experience. There is no evidence on the record to show that the oil underwent some change by addition of scent. The question whether the hair-oil sold by the assessee as a result of addition of scent became a new commercial commodity, applying the test of user or common experience, is essentially a question of fact. In the absence of any positive material, we do not think that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is erroneous. We answer the question in the negative against the Commissioner, Sales Tax, and in favour of the assessee by saying that in the circumstances of the case mixing of scents in ordinary til oil does not amount to manufacture of perfumed hair-oil. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //