The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a commodity to be considered as consumed in the manufacture of another, the resulting product must be commercially different and distinct from the original commodity, and there must be a transformation leading to the emergence of a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court holding that the turnover of pineapple fruit purchased for preparing pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans is not covered by S.5-A (1) (a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

The respondent, Messrs. Pio Food Packers ("the assessee"), carries on the business of manufacturing and selling canned fruit besides other products. In its return for the year 1973-74 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. the assessee claimed that a turnover of Rs. 3,84, 138.89 representing the purchase of pineapple fruit was not covered by S.5-A (1) (a) of the Act. It was asserted that the pineapple was converted into pineapple slices, pineapple jam, pineapple squash and pineapple juice. S.5-A (1) (a) of the Act provides:

"5-A. Levy of purchase tax

(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under S. S, and either

(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or

shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for the year at the rates mentioned in S 5."

The assessee maintained that by the conversion of pineapple fruit into its products no new commodity was created and it was erroneous to say that there was a consumption of pineapple fruit "in the manufacture of" those goods. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contention and completed the assessment on the finding that a manufacturing process was involved and that, therefore, the case fell within S.5A(1)(a). In revision before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee conceded that pineapple jam and pineapple squash would be covered by S.5-A (1) (a), and in regard to pineapple juice the Tribunal found that S.5-1 (a) was attracted. The only question which remained was whether the preparation of pineapple slices fell within S.5-A (I) (a). On that question two members of the Tribunal found in favour of the assessee, and the third member found in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue then applied in revision to the High Court and the High Court has, by. its judgment dated 24th January, 1978, maintained the order of the Tribunal.

It appears that the pineapple purchased by the assessee is washed and then the inedible portion, the end crown, skin and inner core are removed, thereafter the fruit is sliced and the slices are filled in cans, sugar is added as a preservative, the cans are sealed under temperature and then put in boiling water for sterilisation. Is the pineapple fruit consumed in the manufacture of pineapple slices?

S. 5-A (1) (a) of the Kerala General Saks Tax Act envisages the consumption of a commodity in the manufacture of another commodity. The goods purchased should be consumed, the consumption should be in the process of manufacture, and the result must be the manufacture of other goods. There are several criteria for determining whether a commodity is consumed in the manufacture of another. The

generally prevalent test is whether the article produced is regarded in the trade, by those who deal in it, as distinct in identity from the commodity involved in its manufacture. Commonly, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, and indeed there may be several stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufa