Pathak, J. - (1.) 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 5-A (1) (a) of the Act. It was asserted that the pineapple was converted into pineapple slices, pineapple jam, pineapple squash and pineapple juice. Section 5-A (1) (a) of the Act provides: "5-A. Levy of purchase tax- (1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 5, and either- (a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or ... ... ... ... ... ... shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for the year at the rates mentioned in Sec. 5."
(3.) The assessee maintained that by the conversion of pineapple fruit into its products no new commodity was created and it was erroneous to say that there was a consumption of pineapple fruit "in the manufacture of" those goods. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contention and completed the assessment on the finding that a manufacturing process was involved and that, therefore, the case fell within Section 5-A (1) (a). In revision before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee conceded that pineapple jam and pineapple squash would be covered by Section 5-A (1) (a), and in regard to pineapple juice the Tribunal found that Section 5-1 (a) was attracted. The only question which remained was whether the preparation of pineapple slices fell within Section 5-A (1) (a). On that question two members 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.;