The sale of pig bristles by the assessee, who purchased them from Kanjars and got them boiled, washed, sorted and tied in bundles, was not assessable to tax under section 2 (h), Explanation II (ii) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as the assessee was not a manufacturer.

Judgment

SIKRI,, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High court of, Judicature at Allahabad in Miscellaneous Case No. 146 of 1958, in a reference made to it under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act 15 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U. P. Three questions were referred to the High court but we are only concerned with the third question which reads: "whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the sales made by the assessee were assessable to tax under section 2 (h), Explanation II (ii) ?" The facts stated in the statement of the case are as follows : The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the assessees, were dealers in pig bristles at Kanpur. They were assessed to sales tax for the year 1948-49. The assessees sold pig bristles at London and contended that the sales made at London were not taxable as the bristles were not manufactured goods within Explanation II (ii) to section 2 (h ). It is further stated in the statement of the case : "pig bristles are plucked by kanjars from pigs and they bring them for sale to the assessees. The assessees then get them boiled and washed with soap and other chemicals. They are then sorted out according to their sizes and colours and are then tied in separate bundles of different sizes. It is in that form that they are despatched to foreign countries for sale. . . . . . In the application made by the department it is also said that the assessees also do some cutting of the bristles. This fact is denied by the assessees. It is pointed out (to me) that both the roots and the tops of bristles are the most valuable parts and they have got a sort of tuft at the top. The roots also are rather hard. In fact, the bristles are not cut from the bodies of the pigs,. . . . . . It is possible that if in sorting the sizes just a few ends project beyond others, they may be clipped a little only for uniformity of size. There is no actual cutting of either end. " Relevant portion of section 2 (h) of the Act reads as follows: " (h) sale means, within its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes forward contracts but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge; Explanation 1. . . . . . . . . . Explanation II.-Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, or any other law for the time being in force, the sale of any goods- (i) which are actually in Uttar Pradesh at the time when in respect thereof, the contract of sale as defined in section 4 of that Act is made, (ii) or which are produced or manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, by the producer or manufacturer thereof, shall, wherever the delivery or contract of sale is made, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have taken place in Uttar Pradesh. " The High court, after setting out the facts, held that the assessees were not manufacturers. Desai, C. J. , observed : "all that it does to the bristles bought from Kanjars does not amount to manufacturing. It does not result in the production of a commercially different article; what is bought by it from Kanjars is bristles and what it exports for sale is also bristles. It is not possible to say that the assessee manufactures pig bristles out of pig bristles; cleaning and arranging into different groups of different sizes and different colours does not convert them into something essentially or commercially different. " We agree with the observations of the learned chief justice. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on G. R. Kulkarni v. The State and Hiralal Jitmal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax in support of his submission that the bristles were manufactured goods within the meaning of section 2 (h ). Explanation II (ii ). But, in our opinion, the first case is distinguishable. In that case the High court of Madhya Pradesh held that th