Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.
1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. The dealer purchases white cotton yarn and he dyes it into different colours and then sells the coloured yarn. Under Section 2(r) of the Act the words 'taxable turnover' have been defined and under Section 6 of the Act sales tax is payable on the taxable turnover of a dealer. The relevant part of Section 2(r) is as follows :
'taxable turnover' in relation to any period means that part of a dealer's turnover for such period which remains after deducting therefrom-
(i) * * *(ii) sale price of goods other than those mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of this clause, which have been purchased otherwise than in the course of inter-State trade or commerce from a registered dealer...(i) * * *
Therefore, on the sale price of yarn which this dealer purchases from a registered dealer and then sells the same, sales tax is not payable under Section 6. Under Section 7 of the Act purchase tax is payable by 'every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods from a registered dealer, in circumstances in which no tax under Section 6 is payable on the sale price of such goods or from any other person and either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale This section, therefore, provides that in a case where sales tax is not payable under Section 6, purchase tax would be payable upon the price at which the goods had been purchased by the dealer provided they are consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale.
2. The contention of the department in the present case, therefore, was that when the dealer purchases uncoloured yarn and dyes it, he consumes uncoloured yarn and manufactures coloured yarn out of it. Since he is exempt from sales tax on the sale of uncoloured yarn, he is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 7.
3. The contention of the dealer before the lower tribunals was twofold. In the first place, he contended that by merely dyeing the yarn he did not utilize any manufacturing process and that the product of this process remained cotton yarn and, therefore, no purchase tax was payable. He also contended that in any case this was one of the 'declared goods' under the Central Sales Tax Act and it could not be taxed twice or at a rate more than two per cent. These contentions were not accepted by the assessing officer or by the first appellate authority. But in the Board of Revenue the first contention of the dealer was accepted and the second contention was not decided because the dealer was held not liable to pay the tax as demanded by the department on the first contention. The Commissioner of Sales Tax then made an application for a reference to this court on the first question decided by the Board of Revenue. Upon that application the following question had been referred to this court:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, dyeing of white yarn is 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?
4. The word 'manufacture' has been denned by Section 2(j) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act as follows :
'manufacture' includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods and in respect of trees which have been severed from the land or which have been felled, also the process of lopping the branches, cutting the trunks or converting them into logs, poles or bailies or any other articles of wood, but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed.
This definition is very wide and includes any process or manner of producing or preparing any goods. It is quite clear that when uncoloured yarn is dyed, it is preparing dyed cotton yarn. The use of dyed cotton yarn is necessarily different from that of uncoloured yarn and a person who wants dyed yarn will not be satisfied with undyed yarn. It cannot, therefore, be denied that this is a process of manufacture within the meaning of the definition quoted above.
5. A very similar question arose in this court in Hiralal Jitmal v. Sales Tax Commissioner A.I.R. 1957 M.P. 37 where cotton cloth was coloured by the assessee and sold as coloured cloth. It was held that it was a process of manufacture. This case was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Harbilas Rai & Sons  21 S.T.C. 17 (S.C).
6. Learned counsel for the dealer, however, contended that out of the order of the Board of Revenue another question also arose, namely, that on account of the cotton yarn being a declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, this tax could not be charged. That question has not been decided by the Board of Revenue, as already stated, and that question has not been referred to this court. This court cannot, therefore, go into that matter. However, when the answer to the question referred is returned to the Board of Revenue, the dealer may ask the Board to decide the question which it had found unnecessary to decide on the previous occasion, if that is open to the, dealer according to law.
7. Our answer to the question referred to this court is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, dyeing of white yarn is 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Parties will bear their own costs.