PATHAK, J. - (1.) THE facts are set out in the judgment proposed by my brother Gulati.
(2.) THE question is whether plain glass bangles and ornamented glass bangles are to be regarded as essentially the same commercial commodity or can they be considered as two distinct commercial commodities. Glass bangles constitute a commodity which is well known. They may be plain or cut or ornamented. They are manufactured in their plain state. With some processing indentations are cut into plain bangles, and they take the appearance of cut glass bangles. The indentations may be filled with liquid gold to give the bangles an ornamented appearance. In each case what is done is to put the glass bangles through a further process. The consequence of the processing is to give a slightly different appearance to the surface of the glass bangles. Essentially, the glass bangle continues to be the same article. The processing does not result in the emergence of a new commercial commodity and it cannot be said that it amounts to manufacture. There is a distinction between mere processing and manufacture, and the distinction was brought out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791) in the following words : "According to the learned counsel 'manufacture' is complete as soon as by the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some change. To say this is to equate 'processing' to 'manufacture' and for this we an find no warrant in law. The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Volume 26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus : '"Manufacture" implies a change, but every changes is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and difference article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use.'" The processing to which the glass bangles are subjected may conceivably result in different varieties of glass bangles, but I am unable to say that as between themselves each variety can be considered as a distinct commercial commodity. Different names may perhaps be given for the purpose of distinguishing one variety from another, but whether they are plain glass bangles or ornamented glass bangles their character and use remains the same. That character and use is not affected by the superficial change in appearance from plain bangles to ornamented glass bangles. I might refer to the observations in B. Dar Laboratories v. State of Gujarat ([1968] 22 S.T.C. 160), where it was said : "............ when a process is adopted for convenience of sale or making the article more acceptable to the customers, if the article in question retains its essential character, it has to be taxed as such article only and the processing would make no difference. The physical state or even the composition may change but so long as the essential character of the article continues to remain the same, it has to be taxed as the commodity alone." I need not refer to the other cases cited before us because, in my opinion, it is perhaps possible to say that the question in some of those case arose in a somewhat different context.
(3.) AS regards the material on the record before us, I am unable to discover anything there which supports the case of the respondents that plain glass bangles and ornamented glass bangles are distinct commercial commodities. In my judgment, glass bangles, being a single commercial commodity, cannot be taxed twice by a notification under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. On that ground alone, I hold that Notification No. ST-471/X-900-(45)/1965, dated 1st February, 1966, is ultra vires. In the result, the petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall issue quashing the assessment order dated 18th November, 1966, made against the petitioner for the assessment year 1965-66. There is no order as to costs.;