BEG, J. - (1.) MESSRS Barjatya Traders of Hathras have filed four Writ Petitions Nos. 27, 28, 981 and 982 of 1967 challenging the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, opposite party No. 1, assessing the petitioner to pay sales tax for the assessment quarter ending 30th June, 1967, the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, and the assessment quarter ending 30th September, 1966. Messrs Gangaram Sitaram of Hathras have filed Writ Petitions Nos. 29 and 979 of 1967 challenging the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, for the quarters ending 30th June, 1966, and 30th September, 1966. Messrs Dayabhai Zaver Bhai of Hathras have filed Writ Petition No. 980 of 1967 challenging the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, for the assessment year 1965-66. In each of the writ petitions the assessment order is challenged only to the extent of the purchases of arhar dal from dal and oil-seeds manufacturers.
(2.) THE petitioners' contention in each of the above-mentioned writ petitions was that the purchase tax imposed by section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is a single point tax and can only be imposed once and not repeatedly in a series of purchases and sales. They alleged that the arhar dal purchased by them had already been taxed in the hands of the dal and oil-seeds manufacturers who had sold the same commodity after putting it through a process which did not alter the nature of the commodity. This contention was rejected in each of the above-mentioned assessments by the Sales Tax Officer who held that arhar was commercially a different commodity from arhar when sold as dal so that it was liable in the hands of the above-mentioned petitioners, for the payment of purchase tax under section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as amended in 1964. The points involved in each of the writ petitions are common. The whole set of petitions may, therefore, be decided by the same judgment. The case on behalf of the department as set out in the counter-affidavits on behalf of the department is as follows : "Arhar and arhar dal are two commercial commodities, inasmuch as arhar has to undergo several processes before dal is manufactured from it. The first process is of cleaning in which dust, durrana, etc. are removed. In this process chhilka, chuni and kutta are obtained as by-products. The decorticated arhar is then subjected to oil and water process wherein oil and water are applied to it and then it is left to dry. The dried arhar is then dragged in the mill when zarda, khanda, turra (small pieces of arhar) and dal are obtained. In the final process all these things are separated. Thus it is not correct to say that arhar and dal are the same things." It is evident that the case set up in this Court is that, although arhar and arhar dal may belong to the same genus, they are different "commercial commodities". The Sales Tax Officer had, when he decided the cases, considered arhar and arhar-ki-dal not only to be separate commercial commodities but also as different products, each of a different genus. He referred to arhar as a "cereal" which was converted into a "pulse" by the process of manufacture. The processes were mentioned as follows by the Sales Tax Officer : "The cereals have to undergo several processes of cleaning, decortication, application of oil and water, grinding etc., before they are converted into pulses." The Sales Tax Officer thought that the arhar bought by the assessee in each case was a first purchase of dal which was a new "commercial commodity". He observed, "The case is similar to that of maida, suji and atta manufactured from wheat."
(3.) THE petitioners relied upon Tungabhadra Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 827; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 412), where it was held that although raw groundnut oil is converted into refined oil by being put through a process which consisted of separating the non-fatty contents of the raw oil so as to convert the contents of oil into those containing cent. per cent. oil. The resulting refined oil had different characteristics of colour, taste, and odour from that of raw groundnut oil, but the product was still held to be groundnut oil for purposes of taxation. The Supreme Court observed : "In our opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court laid an undue emphasis on the addition by way of the absorption of the hydrogen atoms in the process of hardening and on the consequent inter-molecular changes in the oil. The addition of the hydrogen atoms was effected in order to saturate a portion of the oleic and linoleic constituents of the oil and render the oil more stable thus improving its quality and utility. But neither mere absorption of other matter, nor inter-molecular changes necessarily affect the identity of a substance as ordinarily understood." It also said : "There is no use to which the groundnut oil can be put for which the hydrogenated oil should not be used, nor is there any use to which the hydrogenated oil could be put for which the raw oil could not be used. Similarly we consider 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." ;