Goods used for ancillary purposes like fuel in the process of manufacture of goods are not comprehended within S.5A(1)(a). Additionally, there must be a transfer of the goods to another person for them to be liable to tax under S.5A(1)(b).

1. These revision cases are at the instance of the Revenue and relate to the assessments made on the respondent - assessee for the assessment years 1974-75,1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee is a manufacturer of, and dealer in, tiles, terra-cotta wares and ceramics. The assessee, who is carrying on his business in Quilon purchases cashew shells which are in abundant supply in that area, for being used as fuel in the kiln in his factory for the manufacture of the tiles and others. The assessee contended that the purchase turnover of cashew shells was exempted from levy of tax under S.SA of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act in short), under notification SRO 722/73 issued by the Government of Kerala under S.10 of the Act. Alternately the assessee contended that the purchase in question was not liable for the levy of tax under S.SA since none of the conditions prescribed in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of S.5A(1) was satisfied.

2. The assessee had also purchased, during the years, lime shell and certain stores described as consumed stores, which had been utilised in the maintenance of the kiln and the factory. These purchases were also claimed as non-taxable in view of the conditions prescribed in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of S.5A(1) being not satisfied.

3. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority overruled the contentions of the assessee and brought these purchases to tax under S.5A(1). In Second Appeal, the Tribunal did not accept the case of the assessee regarding the non-taxability on the purchase turnover of cashew shells under the notification SRO 722/73. The Tribunal, however, held that the cashew shells had been used only as fuel in the kiln for the manufacture of tiles and of goods and hence clause (a) of S.5A(1) was not satisfied, there being no consumption of the cashew shells in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise. The Tribunal also held that there was no disposal of the lime shells or the consumed stores, which were used up for the maintenance of factory and kiln and that there was also no consumption of those goods the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise. In this view of matter the Tribunal declared the purchases of these items as not taxable under S.5A of the Act. Before us counsel for the Revenue reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

4. S.5A(1) truly read "speaks of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other than sale." (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, 46 STC 63 (SC)). The cashew shells had admittedly been used as fuel in the kiln. They had nut been used as raw material in manufacture of any goods for sale by the assessee. They have not therefore been used in the manufacture of any goods for sale, but only as an aid in manufacture of goods by the assessee. Consumption in the manufacture goods is of raw material or other components which go into the making of end product. Goods used for ancillary purposes like fuel in the process of manufacture of goods are not comprehended within S.5A(1)(a). We the fore, hold that the purchase of the cashew shell does not attract levy of under S.5A(1)(a). The same is the position with regard to the lime shell a and consumed stores, which have been used only in the maintenance of I kiln and the factory.

5. The further question raised is that these goods have been disposed otherwise than by way of sale within the State and hence liable to tax virtue of S.5A(1)(b). We have, therefore, to examine whether there is a disposal of these goods in any manner otherwise than by way of sale within the State. We have had occasion to examine the precise meaning of this sub clause in our decision in State of Kerala v. Ocean Wealth (1986 KLT 1337), when we have concurred with the decisions of the Karnataka High Court K. Cheyyabba v. State of Karnataka (45 STC 1) and Goodyear India Limited The State of