- (1.) THIS reference has been filed under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, in respect of the order of a learned single Member of this Board, dated 2. 2. 1966, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the assessee against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation (Appeals), Jaipur, dated 8. 4. 1963, holding that it was not borne out from the record that the assessee had made chowkhats from the stone slabs. The learned Member held that the assessee had only straightened the edges of the stones to facilitate the transport thereof and therefore the learned Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation (Appeals), had fallen into an error in rejecting the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer, who had assessed the assessee holding that he had carved and dressed stones from the raw-material by employing labour, and had turned the same into chowkhats etc.
(2.) AS is apparent from the order under reference, the assessee is a dealer in stone slabs. He purchases stones from Nimbahera, straightens the edges and then sells them in the market. He pays the sales-tax at the first point, while purchasing the stone slabs from Nimbahera. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that by straightening the edges of the slabs, the assesse subjects them to processing and in ignoring this aspect the learned single Member has fallen into an error. It is therefore requested that a reference may be made to the High Court on the following question of law : "whether straightening the edges of a slab of stone is processing?" The learned counsel for the opposite party has contested the application on the ground that the straightening of the edges of the slabs is done by the assessee for facility of transport. It is his contention that even if the slabs are turned into a standard size they remain slabs. The stones could be held to have been processed if the slabs were converted into Chowkhats or any other different material, but so long as that is not done they cannot be deemed to have been processed. In this connection, he relies upon the rule laid down in M/s Chohan Pan Bhandar vs. A. S. T. O. , Beawar (RRD 1965, page 3), wherein it was held that betel-leaves and pans are synonyms and include also the application of Chuna and Katha to them, which makes no change in the original form of the betel leaves. In this connection, the learned Judges examined a number of authorities and came to the conclusion that the real import of all the observations made in the said authorities is that the exemption clause appearing in taxation laws should be reasonably interpreted. The interpretation should neither be so liberal that it may promote fraud and open flood-gates for the tax-payers to evade the tax by subtle and dishonest devices, nor should it be so narrow and unreasonable that the remedy provided by the Legislature becomes only nominal and the very object which it is sought to accomplish, is defeated. It should be given its full and reasonable scope and amplitude so long as no violence is done to the language used and the exemption should not be whittled down by importing limitations not inserted or contemplated by the Legislature. A perusal of the order under reference shows that the learned Government Advocate had conceded in that Court that the assessee was not manufacturing Chowkhats from the stone slabs. It was his contention that the assessee merely chiselled and dressed the stone slabs, which according to him, amounted to a process of manufacturing. The learned Member, however, rejected this plea and held that the straightening of the edges which was being done by the assessee was with a view to facilitating their transport. To my mind, the case was decided on a question of fact and no question of law is involved. Keeping in view the interpretation given by the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court in the above mentioned case of M/s Chohan Pan Bhan-dar, I am clearly of the opinion that merely straightening of the edges or chiselling of stones cannot be categorised as the process of manufacture. An analogy may be taken from logs of trees, which are usually cut into varying sizes for facility of transport. Unless however they are converted into chowkhats, doors, pawas toys etc. , they cannot be deemed to have been subjected to a process of manufacture. By straightening the edges of stones or cutting down the size thereof, it cannot be said that the stones have been subjected to a process of manufacture. I, therefore, see no force in this application and hereby reject the same. . ;