judgement:
Civil Appeal No. 1632 of 1973 and 167 of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29th April, 1972 of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji in Special Civil Application No. 60 of 1970.
R. V. Patel and Mrs. Ali Verma for the Appellants in CA No. 1632/73 and for the Respondent in CA 107/74.
V. section Desai, B. B. Ahuja and M. N. Shroff for the Appellants in CA 107/74 and for the Respondent in CA.
1632/73.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J.
These two appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, partly allowing a writ petition filed by Chowgule & Co. Pvt.
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) for quashing an order of the Lieutenant Governor, Goa, Daman and Diu dated 22nd August 1970.
The question which arises for determination in these two appeals is a short one but in order to appreciate the arguments bearing upon it, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the controversy between the parties.
The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of mining iron ore and selling it in the export market after dressing, washing, screening and blending it.
The assessee owns mines at Sirigao, Pale and various other places in the territory of Goa.
The extraction of ore from the mines at Sirigao and Pale is carried on by mechanised process while the extraction of ore from the other mines is done by manual labour.
When the ore is extracted from the mines it 275 is carried to the dressing plant where it is washed, screened and dressed and then it is stacked at the mining site from where it is carried by conveyor belts to the river side for being carried by barges to the Marmagoa harbour.
Before the ore is carried from the mining site to the river side, its chemical as well as physical composition is ascertained by taking samples and testing them in the laboratories at each major mine and this process is carried on every day round the clock in order to ascertain the chemical and physical composition of the ore which comes to Marmagoa, harbour.
Since the chemical and physical composition of the ore varies from mine to mine and even within the same mine itself, intra mine blending of the ore is carried out at the mining site with a view to arriving at a certain specified chemical and physical composition.
When the ore carried by barges arrives at the Marmagoa harbour, it is stacked in different stockpiles according to its chemical and physical composition.
Since the assessee sells the ore only in the export market, it has to supply ore to the foreign buyers in accordance with the specifications required by them and therefore it is required to carry out blending of the ore mined by it in such a manner as to produce ore of the required chemical and physical composition.
This operation of blending is carried out by the assessee, not before the loading of the ore into the ship, but in the process of loading itself through the mechanical ore handling plant.
What is done is to draw different quantities of ore from different stock piles and put them together in the mechanical ore handling plant so that they get blended in the process of loading and the blended ore which is actually loaded into the ship is ore of the contractual chemical and physical composition.
The mechanical ore handling plant thus performs a dual function, namely, blending of ore from different stock piles containing ore of different chemical and physical composition and loading of the blended ore into the ship for delivery to the foreign buyers.
It will thus be seen that the entire activity of the assessee is broadly divisible into seven different operations, one following upon the other, namely, (i) extraction of ore from the mine; (ii) conveying the ore to the dressing plant; (iii) washing, screening and dressing the ore; (iv) conveying of the ore from the mine site to the river side; (v) transport of the ore from the river side to the harbour by means of barges; (vi) stacking of the ore at the harbour in different stock piles according to its physical and chemical composition, and (vii) blending of the ore from different stock piles with a view to producing ore of the required specifications and loading it into the ship by means of the mechanised ore handling plant.
The question is whether goods purchased by the assessee for use in the above operations could be said 276 to be goods purchased for use "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining" so as to attract the lower rate of sales tax under section 8(1)(b) of the .
It would be convenient at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which have a bearing on the question before us.
Section 6 provides that, subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, every dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on all sales of goods other than electrical energy effected by him in the course of interstate trade or commerce during any year.
Section 7 provides for registration of dealers and sub section (1) of this section states that every dealer liable to pay tax under the Act shall make an application for registration to such authority in the appropriate State as the Central Government may specify and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.
Sub section (3) of section 7 enacts that if the authority to whom an application under sub section (1) is made is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, he shall register the applicant and grant to him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods for the purposes of sub section (1) of section 8.
Section 8 provides inter alia as under and we are setting out here the relevant part of the section as it stood at the material time: "Sec.
8(1): Every dealer, who is in the course of inter State trade or commerce (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be 3 per cent of his turn over.
(3) The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub sec.(1) (b) x x x are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being in tended for re sale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of 277 goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation or h distribution of electricity or any other form of power.
Section 13 confers rule making authority on the Central Government and by clause (e) of sub section (1) of that section, the Central Government is authorised to make rules providing for "the enumeration of goods or class of goods used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power.
" Pursuant to the authority conferred by this provision, the Central Government has made Rule 13 which at the material time was in the following terms: Rule 13: The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub sec.(3) of section 8, which a registered dealer may purchase, shall be goods intended for use by him as raw materials, processing materials, machinery plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation of distribution of electricity or any other form of power." " The assessee made an application to the Sales Tax Officer on 14th September 1967 for inclusion of 36 items of goods in the certificate of registration on the ground that these items of goods were being purchased by it for use in mining ore and processing it for sale in the export market, and hence they were goods falling within section 8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
It is obvious that if this application were granted and the items of goods mentioned in the application were specified in the certificate of registration, the dealer selling these goods to the assessee in the course of inter State trade or commerce would be liable to pay sales tax only at the rate of 3 per cent of the turnover of these sales and the assessee in its turn would have to reimburse the selling dealer only at the rate of 3 per cent of the sale price, where as otherwise the amount payable would be at a much higher rate.
The assessee therefore pressed this application before the Sales Tax Officer with a certain amount of vehemence, but the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 4th March 1968 granted specification only in respect of 11 items and disallowed the remaining 25 items.
The view taken by the Sales Tax Officer was that the blending of ore which was done in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant did not amount to manufacture or processing of ore and, therefore, the only goods in respect of which specification could be claimed by the assessee in the certificate of registration were goods purchased for use in mining and since the process of mining came to an end when ore was extracted from the mines and washed, screened 2 57 SCI/81 278 and dressed in the dressing plant and stacked at the mining site, the goods purchased by the assessee for use only in these operations were eligible for being specified in the Certificate of Registration and no the goods purchased for use in any of the subsequent operations including bending and loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant.
The Sales Tax Officer held that only l l items of goods could be regarded as goods purchased for use in mining and the remaining 2 I ems of goods did not fall within this description and hence were not includable in the Certificate of Registration.
The assessee preferred a revision application, but the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who heard the revision application, took the same view as the Sales Tax Officer in regard to me nature of the operations carried on by the assessee and holding that the assessee was entitled to inclusion in the Certificate of Registration of only those items of goods which were purchased for use in the process of mining (which ended with the stacking of the ore at the mining site after extraction, washing, screening and dressing), he examined the 25 items disallowed by the Sales Tax Officer with reference to this criterion and came to the conclusion that 6 out of these 25 items were eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration and he accordingly allowed the revision application in respect of these 6 items and rejected it in respect of the remaining 19 items.
The assessee thereupon carried the matter further in revision to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, but the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the Government agreed with the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and rejected the revision application by an order dated 22nd August 1970.
This led to the filing of a writ petition by the assessee in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for quashing the Order of the Government and .
directing inclusion of the remaining 19 items in the Certificate of Registration.
The Judicial Commissioner took the same view as the Sales Tax Authorities in regard to the nature of the operations carried on by the assessee, but gave relief to the assessee in respect of 4 items of goods on the ground that they were goods purchased for use in the process of mining and were therefore liable to be included in the Certificate of Registration.
The result was that 15 items of goods ultimately remained unincluded in the Certificate of Registration.
It is not necessary to reproduce here these 15 items of good in respect of which the application of the assessee was disallowed but it is sufficient to state that they were items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 in the list exhibit No. 6.
The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowance of these 15 items preferred Appeal No. 1632 of 1973 after obtaining certificate from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.
Item 9 which consisted of "Safety Boards and 279 Posters" was not pressed at the hearing of the appeal and hence the controversy between the parties before us centred round the remaining 14 items of goods only and the question is whether these 14 items of goods were eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration.
The Union of India also felt aggrieved by the Order of the Judicial Commissioner allowing 4 items of goods to be included in the Certificate of Registration and hence it preferred Appeal No. 107 of 1974 against the Order of the Judicial Commissioner to the extent to which it was adverse against it.
There are two questions which primarily arise for consideration in these appeals.
One is whether the blending of ore whilst loading it in the ship by means of the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant constituted manufacture or processing of ore for sale within the meaning of sec.8(3)(b) and Rule 13 and the other is whether the process of mining, conveying the mined ore from the mining site to the river side, carrying it by barges to the Marmagoa harbour and then blending and loading it into the ship through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant constituted one integrated process of mining and manufacture or processing of ore for sale, so that the items of goods purchased for use in every phase of this integrated operations could be said to be goods purchased for use in mining and manufacturing or processing of ore for sale falling within the scope and ambit of section 8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
We shall begin with the consideration of the first question, not because it has been formulated as a first question by us, but because on the answer to it depends to a large extent the decision of the second question.
The point which arises for consideration under the first question is as to whether blending of ore in the course of loading it into the ship through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant constituted manufacture or processing of ore.
Now it is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court, the latest being the decision given on 9th May, 1980 in Civil Appeal No. 2398 of 1978 The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s Pio Food Packers that the test for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity, but is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity.
This Court speaking through one of us (Pathak, J.) pointed out: "Commonly manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original com 280 modity is made to pass.
The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, and indeed there may be several stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of processing at each stage.
With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change.
But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place.
" The test that is required to be applied is; does the processing of the original commodity bring into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity? On an application of this test, it is clear that the blending of different qualities of ore processing differing chemical and physical composition so as to produce ore of the contractual specifications cannot be said to involve the process of manufacture, since the ore that is produced cannot be regarded as a commercially new and distinct commodity from the ore of different specifications blended together.
What is produced as a result of blending is commercially the same article, namely, ore, though with different specifications than the ore which is blended and hence it cannot be said that any process of manufacture is involved in blending of ore.
It still remains to consider whether the ore blended in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant can be said to undergo processing when it is blended.
The answer to this question depends upon what is the true meaning and connotation of the word "processing" in sec.8(3)(b) and Rule 13.
The word has not been defined in the Act and it must therefore be interpreted according to its plain natural meaning.
Websters ' Dictionary gives the following meaning of the word "process", "to subject to some special process or treatment, to subject (especially raw material) to a process of manufacture, development or preparation for the market etc., to convert into marketable form as live stock by slaughtering, grain by milling, cotton by spinning, milk by pasteurizing fruits and vegetables by sorting and repacking.
" Where therefore any commodity is subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market", as, for example, by sorting and repacking fruits and vegetables, it would amount to processing of the commodity within the meaning of sec.8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
The nature and extent of processing may vary from case to case; in one case the processing may be slight and in another it may be extensive; but with each process suffered, the commodity would experience a change.
Wherever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity.
The nature and extent of the change is not mate 281 rial.
It may be that camphor powder may just be compressed into camphor cubes by application of mechanical force or pressure without addition or admixture of any other material and yet the operation may amount to processing of camphor powder as held by the Calcutta High Court in Om Parkash Gupta vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, What is necessary in order to characterise an operation as "processing" is that the commodity must, as a result of the operation, experience some change.
Here, in the present case, diverse quantities of ore possessing different chemical and physical compositions are blended together to produce ore of the requisite chemical and physical composition demanded by the foreign purchaser and obviously as a result of this blending, the quantities of ore mixed together in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant experience change in their respective chemical and physical compositions, because what is produced by such blending is ore of a different chemical and physical composition.
When the chemical and physical composition of each kind of ore which goes into the blending is changed, there can be no doubt that the operation of blending would amount to 'processing ' of ore within the meaning of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
It is no doubt true that the blending of ore of diverse physical and chemical compositions is carried out by the simple act of physically mixing different quantities of such ore on the conveyor belt of the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant.
But to our mind it is immaterial as to how the blending is done and what process is utilised for the purpose of blending.
What is material to consider is whether the different quantities of ore which are blended together in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant undergo any change in their physical and chemical composition as a result of blending and so far as this aspect of the question is concerned, it is impossible to argue that they do not suffer any change in their respective chemical and physical compositions.
The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. vs State of Bombay.
The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process, blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the market.
The question arose before the Sales Tax Authorities whether the different brands of tea purchased and blended by the assessees for the 282 purpose of producing the tea mixture could be said to have been 'processed ' after the purchase within the meaning of the proviso to sec.
8(a), so as to preclude the assessees from being entitled to deduct from their turn over under section 8(a) the value of the tea purchased by them.
The High Court of Bombay held that the different brands of tea purchased by the assessees could not be regarded as 'processed ' within the meaning of the proviso to clause (a) of sec. 8, because there was "not even application of mechanical force so as to subject the commodity to a process, manufacture, development or preparation" and the commodity remained in the same condition.
The argument of the Revenue before us was that this decision of the Bombay High Court was on all fours with the present case and if the blending of different brands of tea for the purpose of producing a tea mixture in accordance with a formula evolved by the assessees could not be regarded as 'processing ' of tea, equally on a parity of reasoning, blending of ore of different chemical and physical compositions could not be held to constitute 'processing ' of the ore.
Now undoubtedly there is a close analogy between the facts of Nilgiri Tea Company 's case and the facts of the present case, but we do not think we can accept the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Nilgiri Tea Company 's case as laying down the correct law.
When different brands of tea were mixed by the assessees in Nilgiri 's Tea Company 's case for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to a formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of the different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of mixing qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into existence was of different quality and flavour than the different brands of tea which went into the mixture.
There are it is true, some observations in the judgment of the Bombay High Court which seem to suggest that if instead of manual application of energy in mixing the different brands of tea, there had been application of mechanical force in producing the tea mixture, the Court might have come to a different conclusion and these observations were relied upon by the assessee, since in the present case the lending was done by application of mechanical force, but we do not think that is the correct test to be applied for the purpose of determining whether there is 'processing '.
The question is not whether there is manual application of energy or there is application of mechanical force.
Whatever be the means employed for the purpose of carrying out the operation, it is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is material for the purpose of determining whether the operational constitutes 'processing '.
We are clearly of the view that the blending of ore in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant amounted to 'processing ' of ore within the 283 meaning of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13 and the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant fell within the description of "machinery, plant, equipment" used in the processing of ore for sale.
It must therefore follow as a necessary corollary that if any items of goods were purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as "machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants" for the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant, they would be eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration of the assessee.
The question which then arises is as to whether items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in carrying the ore from mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour could be said to be goods purchased for use in mining or in processing of ore for sale.
Now there can be no doubt, and indeed this could not be seriously disputed that the process of mining comes to an end when ore is extracted from the mines, washed, screened and dressed in the dressing plant and stacked at the mining site and the goods purchased by the assessee for use in the subsequent operations could not therefore be regarded as goods purchased for use 'in mining '.
The requirement of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13 is that the goods must be purchased for use 'in mining ' and not use 'in the business of mining '.
It is only the items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in the actual mining operation which are eligible for inclusion in the certificate of registration under this head and these would not include goods purchased by the assessee for use in the operations subsequent to the stacking of the ore at the mining site.
This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Indian Copper Corporation Limited vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
But the claim of the assessee for including in the Certificate of Registration items of goods purchased for use in carrying ore from mining site to the river side and from river side to the Marmagoa harbour was not based solely on the ground that these items of goods are purchased for use `in mining '.
The alternative contention of the assessee was that these items of goods are purchased for use in processing of ore for sale.
The assessee submitted that mining of ore and processing it for the purpose of sale by carrying out blending through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant constitute one integrated process and carrying the ore from the mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour where the processing is being done, is part of this integrated process and hence the items of goods purchased for use in this latter operation are eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration.
We think there is great force in this submission of the 284 assessee.
Where a dealer is engaged both in mining operation as also in processing the mined ore for sale, the two processes being interdependent, it would be essential for carrying on the operation of processing that the ore should be carried from the mining site mined ore for sale, the two processes being inter dependent, it would be essential for carrying on the operation of processing that the ore should be carried from the mining site where the mining operation comes to end to the place where the processing is carried on and that would clearly be an integral part of the operation of processing and if any machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods are used for carrying the ore from the mining site to the place of processing, they would clearly be goods used in processing of ore for sale.
It is obvious that, in the present case, the mining of ore is done by the assessee with a view to processing the mined ore through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant at the Marmagoa harbour and the entire operation of mining ore and processing the mined ore is one integrated process of which transportation of the mined ore from the mining site to the Marmagoa harbour is an essential part and, in the circumstances, it is difficult to see how the machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods used for transporting the mined ore from the mining site to the Marmagoa harbour can be excluded from consideration on the ground that they are not goods used in processing of ore for sale.
The decision of this Court in Indian Copper Corporation case (supra) is directly in point and completely supports this conclusion which we are inclined to reach on principle.
The assessee in that case was a company which mined copper and iron ore from its own mines, transported the ore to its factory and manufactured finished products from the ore for sale.
There were several questions which arose for consideration, before the Court in regard to the assessees ' claim for inclusion of certain items of goods in its certificate of registration and one of them was whether the locomotives and motor vehicles used for removing ore from the place where the mining operations were concluded to the factory where the manufacturing process was going on, could be said to be goods intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale within the meaning of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
This Court held that they were goods falling within this description so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Certificate of Registration of the assessee and Shah, J. speaking on behalf of the Court gave the following reasons for taking this view "We are also of the opinion that in a case where a dealer is engaged both in mining operations and in the manufacturing process the two processes being inter dependent it would be impossible to exclude vehicles which are used for 285 removing from the place where the mining operations are concluded to the factory where the manufacturing process starts.
It appears that the process of mining ore and manufacture with the aid of ore copper goods is an integrated process and there would be no ground for exclusion from the vehicles those which are used for removing goods to the factory after the mining operations are concluded.
Nor is there any ground for excluding locomotives and motor vehicles used in carrying finished products from the factory.
The expression "goods intended for use in the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale" may ordinarily include such vehicles as are intended to be used for removal of processed goods from the factory to the place of storage.
If this be the correct view, the restrictions imposed by the High Court in respect of the vehicles and also the spare parts, tyres and tubes would not be justifiable.
" These reasons apply with equal force in the present case and strongly support the conclusion that the machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour fall within the description of goods intended for use in processing of ore for sale within the meaning of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13.
If any of these items of goods are purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as "machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants" in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour, they would qualify for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration.
It is in the light of this discussion that the question whether the 14 items of goods disallowed by the Sales Tax Authorities and the Judicial Commissioner are eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration has to be decided.
We do not however think any useful purpose will be served by ourselves examining each of these 14 items for the purpose of deciding whether, according to the principles enunciated by us, any of them qualifies for being included in the Certificate of Registration.
That is a matter which can appropriately be decided by the Sales Tax Officer in the light of the principles laid down by us and it need not occupy our time here.
We accordingly allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the Sales Tax Officer to examine these 14 items of goods and determine in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment whether any of these 14 items of goods is liable to be included in the Certificate of Registration.
So far as the 286 appeal of the Union of India is concerned, we do not think that the Judicial Commissioner was in error in giving relief to the assessee in respect of 4 items of goods, since these items of goods were clearly goods intended for use in the process of mining and were rightly directed to be included in the Certificate of Registration.
The appeal of the Union of India will accordingly stand dismissed.
Since the assessee has substantially succeeded, the fair order of costs would be that the Revenue must pay the costs of the assessee throughout.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary:
The assessee is a Private Limited Company, carrying on business of mining iron ore and selling it in the export market after dressing, washing, screening and blending it.
The extraction of iron ore in some of the mines is carried on by mechanised process and at others by manual labour.
The entire activity of the assessee consisted of seven different operations, one following upon the other, namely.
(i) extraction of ore from the mine; (ii) conveying the ore to the dressing plant; (iii) washing, screening and dressing the ore; (iv) conveying of the ore from the mine site, to the river side; (v) transport of the ore from the river side to the harbour by means of barges; (vi) stacking of the ore at the harbour in different stock piles according to its physical and chemical composition; and (vii) blending of the ore from different stock piles with a view to producing ore of the required specifications and loading it into the ship by means of the Mechanised Ore Handling Plant.
Under Section 8(1)(b) of the the assessee would be liable to pay, in respect of goods purchased for use "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale in mining", a lower rate of sales tax at 3% of his turnover, if it is granted, under section 7(3), a Certificate of Registration by Sales Tax Officer specifying the class or classes of goods for the purpose of sub section (1) of section 8 read with Rule 13.
The assessee, therefore, made an application to the Sales Tax Officer for inclusion of 36 items of goods in the certificate of registration on the ground that these items of goods were being purchased by it for use in mining ore and processing it for sale in the export market, and hence they were goods falling within section 8(3)(b) of the Act and Rule 13.
The Sales Tax Officer granted certificate only in respect of 11 items and disallowed 25 items.
In revision, the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, took the same view of the Sales Tax 272 A Officer, reviewed all the 25 items disallowed and found that six more items to be eligible for certification.
The further revision before the Government carried by the assessee failed.
Thereupon the assessee filed a writ petition in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Goa.
The Judicial Commissioner agreed with the views of the Sales Tax Authorities but on his scrutiny found that 4 more items, out of 19 items rejected, to be eligible for certification.
Hence, the appeals by special leave, one by the assessee in respect of all the 15 items and another by the Union of India regarding the 4 items found to be in order by the Judicial Commissioner.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, dismissing the appeal of Union of India and remitting the matter to the Tax Authorities for further scrutiny of the 14 items pressed by the assessee, the Court ^ HELD: (I) Applying the test laid down in M/s. Pio Food Packers [1980] 3 SCR p. 1271, namely, "Does the processing of the original commodity bring into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity ?", it is clear that the blending of different qualities of ore possessing different chemical and physical composition so as to produce ore of the contractual specifications cannot be said to involve the process of manufacture, since the ore that is produced cannot be regarded as a commercially new and distinct commodity from the ore of different specifications blended together.
What is produced as a result of blending is commercially the same article, namely, ore, though with different specifications than the ore which is blended and hence it cannot be said that any process of manufacture is involved in blending of c re.
[279G, 280B D] The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax vs
Pio Food Packers, [1980] 3 SCR p. 1271, applied.
(2) Where any commodity is subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development of preparation for the market".
it would amount to processing of the commodity within the meaning of sec.
8(3)(b) and Rule 13.
The nature and extent of processing may vary from case to case; in one case the processing may be slight and in another it may be extensive; but with each process suffered, the commodity would experience a change.
What is necessary in order characterize an operation as "processing" is that the commodity must, as a result of the operation, experience some change.
In this sense word "processing" in section 8(3) (b) and Rule 13 should be understood as it has not been defined in the Act.
[280E, G H, 281A B] Om Prakash Gupta vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 16 Sales Tax Cases 935 (Cal.), approved.
(3) The blending of ore in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant amounted to "processing" of ore within the meaning o section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 and the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant fell within the description of "machinery, plant, equipment" used in the processing of ore for sale.
Therefore, if any items of goods were purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as "machinery, plant, equipment.
tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants" for the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant, they would be eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration of the assessee.
[282X 283A B] 273 Diverse quantities of ore possessing different chemical and physical compositions are blended together to produce ore of the requisite chemical and physical composition demanded by the foreign purchaser and obviously as a result of this blending, the quantities of ore mixed together in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant experience change in their respective chemical and physical compositions, because what is produced by such blending is ore of a different chemical and physical composition.
When the chemical and physical composition of each kind of ore which goes into the blending is changed, there can be no doubt that the operation of blending would amount to "processing" of ore within the meaning of sec.
8(3)(b) and Rule 13.
It is no doubt true that the blending of ore of diverse physical and chemical composition is carried out by the simple act of physically mixing different quantities of such ore on the conveyor belt of the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant.
But it is immaterial as to how the blending is done and what process is utilised for the purpose of blending.
What is material to consider is whether the different quantities of ore which are blended together in the course of loading through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant undergo any change in their physical and chemical composition as a result of blending.
Whatever be the means employed for the purpose of carrying out the operation, it is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is material for the purpose of determining whether the operation constitutes "processing".
[281B E, 212G H] Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. vs State of Bombay, 10 Sales Tax Cases 500 (Bom.) overruled.
The machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour fall within the description of goods intended for use in processing of ore for sale within the meaning of sec.
8(3)(b) and Rule 13.
If any of these items of goods are purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as "machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants" in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the river side and from the river side to the Marmagoa harbour, they would qualify for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration.
[285D E] F The process of mining comes to an end when ore is extracted from the mines, washed, screened and dressed in the dressing plant and stacked at the mining site and the goods purchased by the assessee for use in the subsequent operations could not therefore be regarded as goods purchased for use "in mining".
The requirement of sec.
8(3) (b) and Rule 13 is that the goods must be purchased for use "in mining" and not use "in the business of mining".
It is only the items of goods purchased by the assessee for use in the actual mining operation which are eligible for inclusion in the certificate of registration under this head and these would not include good purchased by the assessee for use in the operations subsequent to the stacking of the ore at the mining site.
[283C E] Where a dealer is engaged both in mining operation as also in processing the mined ore for sale, the two processes being inter dependent, it would be essential for carrying on the operation of processing that the ore should 274 be carried from the mining site, mined ore for sale, the two processes being inter dependent, it would be essential for carrying on the operation of processing that the ore should be carried from the mining site where the mining operation comes to an end to the place where the processing is carried on and that would clearly be an integral part of the operation of processing and if any machinery, vehicles, barges and other items of goods are used for carrying the ore from the mining site to the place of processing, they would clearly be goods used in processing of ore for sale.
In the present case, the mining of ore is done by the assessee with a view to processing the milled ore through the Mechanical Ore Handling Plant at the Marmagoa harbour and the entire operation of mining ore and processing the mined ore is one integrated process of which transportation of the mined ore from the mining site to the Marmagoa harbour is an essential part.
[284A D] Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 15 STC 259 (SC), followed.


judgement:
ivil Appeal No. 707 of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20/21st March, 1978 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No.2868/76.
V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, for the Appellant.
V. section Desai and M. N. Shroff for Respondents 1 to 4.
Mrs. Jayashree Wad for Respondent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J.
This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court maintaining an order of the District Court, Poona by which the appellant 's election as President of the Bhor Municipal Council was set aside on an election petition filed by the respondent.
The appellant stood for election to the office of President of the Bhor Municipal Council.
He filed his nomination paper on 21st October, 1974, and the election was held on 17th November, 1974.
The appellant was declared elected the next day and the result of the 268 election was published in the Government Gazette on 25th November, 1974.
The first respondent filed an election petition before the District Court, Poona challenging the appellant 's election.
He alleged that the appellant had been convicted on 26th December, 1973 by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhor under section 16 of the and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ .
Accordingly, he said, by virtue of section 51(2) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, the appellant was not qualified for election as President of the Municipal Council.
During the pendency of the election petition the Maharashtra Government made an order under cl.
(a) of sub s.(l) of section 16, Maharashtra Municipalities Act,1965 ("the Act") declaring: "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, the Government is pleased to order that the disqualification incurred by Shri Amrutlal Chunilal Raval, resident of Bhor, Tehsil Bhor, District Poona, should remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December, 1973.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.
sd/ M. N. Tadkod, Desk Officer.
" The election petition was allowed and the election of the appellant was set aside.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the order setting aside his election, but the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 21st March, 1978.
In this appeal, the only point pressed by the petitioner before us is that the order dated 20th November, 1975 made by the State Government was retrospective in operation and consequently removed the disqualification imposed on the appellant on the date he filed his nomination paper.
Sub s.(2) of section 51 of the Act provides that every person qualified to be elected as a Councillor under section 15 shall be qualified for election as President.
Sub s.(1) of s.l5 of the Act provides that every person, whose name is included in the list of voters maintained under s.11 and who is not disqualified for being elected a Councillor under this 269 Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall be qualified, A and every person whose name is not included in the list or who is so qualified, to be elected as a Councillor at any election.
Section 16(1) (a) of the Act provides: "16.
(1) No person shall be qualified to become a Councillor whether by election, co option or nomination, who (a) has been convicted by a Court in India of any offence the maximum punishment for which (with or with out any other punishment) is imprisonment for a term of two years or more and sentenced to imprisonment for any term, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular, has elapsed since his release; or xx xx xx xx xx " The appellant was convicted on 26th December, 1973 for an offence under the of Food Adulteration Act, which.
it is not disputed, fell within the terms of cl.(a) of sub s.(l) of s.16.
He was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the court.
Because of the conviction and sentence he suffers the disqualification contemplated by cl.(a), and the disqualification enures for a period of five years from the date of his release from imprisonment.
But, by virtue of the same clause? the State Government has been empowered to substitute a shorter period ,of disqualification.
In other words.
the ordinary run of the clause may be altered by the State Government.
A modification of the normal operation of the statute is contemplated.
Such a modification, to be retrospective.
must indicate clearly that it is so.
There is nothing in the order dated 20th November, 1975 from which it can be inferred that it has retrospective operation.
What it says merely is that the disqualification incurred by the appellant shall remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December.
The disqualification was incurred by the appellant on 26th December, 1973 and the disqualification was in force when he stood for election.
The date when the disqualification for five years was incurred is the relevant date; the subsequent operation is merely the consequence of the incurring of the disqualification.
In the order was to be beneficial to the appellant, it should have been made retrospective from the date when the disqualification was incurred.
On the plain language.
it must be read as an order reducing the period of disqualification to six months, but to be applied to a disqualification arising after the date when the order was made.
270 A In our opinion, the appellant does not benefit from the order the State Government insofar as his election as President in 1974 is concerned.
In the circumstances, we consider it unnecessary to go into the question whether the State Government has the power under cl.
(a) to make an order with retrospective effect.
l[n the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the fifth respondent.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

summary:
The Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 by sub section (2) of section 51 provides that every person qualified to, be elected as a Councillor under section 15 shall be qualified for election as President.
Section 16(1)(a) provides that no person shall be qualified to become a Councillor whether by election, co option or nomination, if he had been convicted by a Court for any offence the maximum punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of two years or more and sentenced to imprisonment for any term, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the Sate Government may allow, has elapsed since his release.
The appellant stood for election to the office of President of the Municipal Council, filed his nomination paper on 21st October 1974, and was declared elected at the election held on 17th November, 1974.
The first respondent filed an election petition before the District Judge challenging the election alleging that the appellant had been convicted on 26th December, 1973 nuder section 16 of the and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ and that by virtue of section 51(2) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Act the appellant was not qualified for election as President of the Municipal Council.
During the pendency of the election petition the Sate Government made an order dated 20th November 1975 under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 16, declaring that the disqualification incurred by the appellant 'should remain in force for a period of six months only from his release on 26th December, 1973 '.
The District Judge allowed the election petition and the election of the appellant was set aside.
The appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended that the order dated 20th November, 1975 made by the State Government was retrospective in operation and consequently removed the disqualification imposed on the appellant on the date he filed his nomination paper.
267 Dismissing the appeal ^ HELD: ( 1 ) The appellant does not benefit from the order of the State Government insofar as his election as President in 1974 is concerned.
[270 A] (2) By virtue of clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 16, the State Government had been empowered to substitute a shorter period of disqualification.
A modification of the normal operation of the statute by the State Government is contemplated.
Such Q modification to be retrospective must indicate clearly that it is so.
[269 E F] In the instant case, disqualification was incurred by the appellant on 26th December, 1973 when he was convicted and sentenced, and the disqualification was in force when he stood for election.
The date when the disqualification for five years was incurred is the relevant date, the subsequent operation is the consequence of the incurring of the disqualification.
If the order was to be beneficial to the appellant, it should have been made retrospective from the date when the disqualification was incurred.
On the plain language, it must be read as an order reducing the period of disqualification to six months, due to be applied to a disqualification arising after the date when the order was made.
[296 G H]