The main legal point established in the judgment is that the process of converting boulders into jelly did not amount to a manufacturing process and did not attract liability under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

( 1 ) IN these four connected appeals presented under section 24 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the assessee, the following question of law arises for consideration : whether the assessee, who had purchased boulders under circumstances in which no tax was leviable at the purchase point and who converted them into jelly, in a process which is not a manufacturing process, is liable to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ?

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are these : The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in latrite and granite stones. During the relevant assessment years, the assessee purchased boulders from unregistered dealers, who are not liable to tax under section 5 of the Act. He produced jelly out of these boulders. For the assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the turnovers of the assessee were as follows : 1970-71. . . Rs. 34,368. 00 1972-73. . . Rs. 71,725. 00 1973-74. . . Rs. 1,00,000. 00 in the first instance, the assessing authority did not levy tax on the said turnover under section 6 of the Act. Later in exercise of his power under section 12-A of the Act, the assessing authority rectified the assessment and brought the aforesaid turnovers to tax under section 6 of the Act.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred appeals before the deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 21st May, 1976. The Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that as the purchase turnover of boulders was already before the assessing authority at the time when he passed original order, the provisions of section 12-A of the Act could not be invoked. In the said view of the matter he set aside the rectification orders.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 22-A of the Act on the ground that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and, therefore, he proposed to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner. As regards the assessment year 1971-72 also the purchase turnover of boulders of the assessee amounting to Rs. 28,051 had been exempted from tax by the assessing authority. But he had not made rectification order under section 12-A of the Act. Therefore the Commissioner initiated similar action for suo motu revision of that order also under section 22-A of the Act.

( 5 ) IN its reply to the Commissioner, the assessee contended as follows : that when it converted the boulders into jelly no manufacturing process was involved. Section 6 of the Act makes the purchase turnover liable to tax only if the goods purchased under circumstances that no tax could be levied under section 5 (1) of the Act are consumed in the manufacture of other commodities. It was argued for the assessee that as no manufacturing process was involved as the boulders were merely converted into jelly just by the process of breaking, the purchase could not be brought to tax under section 6 of the Act.

( 6 ) THE Commissioner, however, did not agree with the contention urged for the assessee. He relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in G. R. Kulkarni v. State [1957] 8 stc 294 in which a Division Bench of the said High Court had held that the breaking of boulders into jelly was a process of manufacture within the meaning of section 2 (i) (a) of the madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Commissioner held that the process by which the assessee converted boulders into jelly amounted to manufacture and therefore the purchase turnover attracted the provisions of section 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred these four appeals.

( 7 ) THE contention urged for the assessee is that the conversion of boulders into jelly by the mere process of breaking, is no manufacturing process and the view taken by the Commissioner to the effect that it was a manufacturing process and consequ