K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. - Taxability under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short), is the question to be considered in all these petitions. The common question is whether the dealer who purchased timber in circumstances in which no sales tax was charged under section 5, is liable to pay tax on the said purchase price under section 6, because the timber purchased by him is cut or sawn by him, into sizes, logs, planks, rafters, etc., for purposes of sale.

The State contends that when timber is converted into logs, sizes, etc., a new product emerges and timber is consumed in the manufacture of the new products.

Section 6 to the extent relevant to consider the rival contentions read as follows :

"Section 6. Levy of purchase tar under certain circumstances. - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5, every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under section 5 is leviable on the sale price of such goods, and

(i) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or consumes otherwise, or disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State."

(other clauses omitted)

"Explanation. - For the purpose of this section 'consumes such goods in the manufacture' shall include goods consumed for ancillary purposes in or for such manufacture."

As rightly submitted by Mr. Dinesh Rao, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, the question has three aspects :

(i) whether there is any manufacturing activity involved in the cutting of timber into logs, planks, etc.;

(ii) whether timber is consumed in the said process; and

(iii) whether any new product emerges out of the said process.

All these aspects involved in the main question are no more unclear in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., (1) State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213; AIR 1985 SC 1293 and (2) Collector of Central Excise v. Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture Co. (P.) Ltd. [1988] 70 STC 314; AIR 1988 SC 1164.

We have no doubt that the question necessarily has to be answered against the Revenue. However, having regard to the elaborate arguments and the several decisions cited before us, we consider it fair to refer to a few of the decisions.

One of the contentions advanced in Titaghur Paper Mills case [1985] 60 STC 213 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 1293 is referred at page 261 of STC (1326 of AIR) thus :

"..... According to the respondent-firm, the Divisional Forest Officer would not be entitled to do so because it had made sized and dressed logs from the timber which it had purchased under the timber contracts and had sold such logs and paid sales tax on these sales and, therefore, to tax the sales of timber to them would be to levy the tax at an earlier point in the same series of sales which is not permissible by reason of the prohibition contained in the proviso to section 8. According to them, timber and sized or dressed logs are one and the same commercial commodity."

In the course of its discussion, the Supreme Court found that there was no difference between timber and logs; thereafter the court proceeded to consider as to whether "beams, rafters and planks would also be logs or timber".

At page 266 of STC (1330 of AIR), the Supreme Court held :

"A question which remains is whether beams, rafters and planks would also be logs or timber. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'beam' inter alia, as 'a large piece of squared timber, long in proportion to its breadth and thickness' and the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as a 'long piece of squared timber supported at both ends, used in houses, ships, etc.' and according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, it means 'a long piece of heavy often squared timber suitable for use in house construction. A beam is thus timber sawn in a particular way. 'Rafter' as shown by the Shorte