The court established that the processing of original commodities into 'chillie powder' and 'corriander powder' creates distinct and different commodities, justifying the levy of tax at 8% on these items.

1. The petitioner herein is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The returns and the books of accounts were rejected. The assessing authority added 5 per cent to the taxable turnover. He also rejected the claim of exemption for the turnover of "chillie powder" and "corriander powder". The assessing authority also imposed tax on the purchase value of the packing material. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the addition from 5 per cent to 1 per cent of the taxable turnover. In all other respects, the order of assessment was confirmed. In second appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover relating to packing materials should be deleted. But the Tribunal maintained that the turnover, estimated on "chillie powder" and corriander powder" is justified. The assessee has come up in revision.

2. We heard counsel for the revision petitioner (assessee). It was submitted that the Appellate Tribunal erred in sustaining the additional of 1 percent to the additional taxable turnover If was further contended that the imposition of tax on "chillie powder" and "corriander powder" at the rate of 8 percent was unauthorised.

3. We see no force in the submissions made by counsel for the revision petitioner. The rejection of accounts was upheld by all the three authorities. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Appellate Tribunal, sustained the estimated turnover by adding 1 percent. As a final fact finding authority, it was competent for the Appellate Tribunal to do so. We find no error justifying interference with the fixation of the said quantum regarding the additions. The more crucial aspect pressed before us was that the appellate Tribunal erred in holding that "chillie powder" and "corriander powder" can be taxed at 8 percent. It was contended that both chillie and corriander have suffered tax and when these commodities were turned into chillie powder and corriander powder, they do not lose their identity and do not become commercially different commodities justifying a fresh imposition of tax. Under entry 27 of the 1st Schedule, tax at the rate of 8 percent is leviable at the first point of sale on spices (including chillie and corriander seeds) not falling under any other items in the Schedule. The assessee urged that the two commodities chillies and corriander have suffered tax and they cannot be taxed again when they are sold as chille powder and corriander powder. The Appellate Tribunal held that the chillies and corriander, and their powder are commercially distinct and different commodities. The powder of such commodities, does not posses? the same identity. The processing of the original commodities brings into existence a commercially distinct and different commodity, which is again taxable. In this view of the matter the Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy of tax at 8 per cent on the said turnover of "chillie powder" and "corriander powder". The assessee has assailed the same in revision.

4. It is true that chillie and corriander are liable to tax at 8 per cent single point; but it should be stated that when chillie was turned into chillie powder and corriander into corriander powder, the original commodities underwent a change, giving rise to chillie powder and corriander powder. They can do longer be regarded as chillie and corriander. A new and distinct commodity emerged out of manufacturing process. These two new or commercially different commodities are taxable again under entry 27 of the 1st Schedule of the Act at 8 per cent. The same commodity at different stages could be treated and taxed as commercially different articles. This petition is settled by a series of decisions of courts. (See Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co v. State of Andhra Pradesh (34 STC 103 SC) at page 110, Ganesh Trading Company v. State of Aaryana (32 STC 623 S.C.) and Achamma Sebastian v. State of Kerala (1967