RAMANUJAM, J.

The disputed turnover in this case is Rs. 1, 00, 29, 369, representing sales of manure mixtures effected by the assessee. The assessee claimed that the sales are second sales of chemical fertilisers and as such exempted from tax. The assessing authority treated the disputed turnover as first sale of "chemical fertilisers" taxable at single point under item 21 of the First Schedule. That view has also been upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. When the matter came before the Tribunal, it took the view that though the manure mixtures in question will fall within item 21 of the First Schedule, the sales by the assessee of the manure mixtures are second sales of chemical fertilisers and hence could not be taxed. Aggrieved against the decision of the Tribunal the revenue is before us.

It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the view taken by the Tribunal that the manure mixture having as its components any one or more of sub-items (1) to (15), which are chemical fertilisers, is also a chemical fertiliser which has already suffered tax is erroneous, that the manure mixture sold by the assessee is different from each of the items of chemical fertilisers referred to in sub-items (1) to (15), that the manure mixture should be taken to be chemical fertilisers having different characteristics and chemical properties and that, therefore, the assessee's sale cannot be said to be a second sale in chemical fertilisers. Reliance is placed by the revenue on a judgment of this court in Imperial Fertiliser and Company v. State of Madras In that case the assessee purchased various items of chemical fertilisers referred to in item 21 of the First Schedule and brought about a new product by mixing one or more of the said articles with one or more of the organic manure and sold the mixed product. The question arose whether the product sold by the assessee will fall within item 21. It was contended that the manure mixture sold by the assessee should be taken to be the same chemical fertilisers which he had purchased and which had already been subjected to tax and that, therefore, his sale will be a second sale in chemical fertilisers. It was held in that case that the manure mixture sold by the assessee had different characteristics and properties of its own and that it did not retain the same characteristics or properties of any one of the chemical manure or organic manure which formed its components, and that for getting an exemption on the ground that the sale of an article is a second or a subsequent sale it must be established that there has been a sale of the same goods at an anterior point of time and unless there is identity between the items of chemical fertilisers purchased and the manure mixture sold it is not possible to treat the sales of the manure mixtures as second sales. Though that decision was rendered in respect of a manure mixture having as its components both organic and inorganic substances, the principle of that decision has to be applied to the facts of this case. The ratio of that decision is that if the mixture sold had different chemical properties and treated as a different commodity in commerce, its sale cannot be taken to be a second sale of chemical fertilisers, merely because the components have suffered tax at an earlier stage as chemical fertilisers.Learned counsel for the assessee, however, points out that the said decision should be confined to the facts of that case where there was a mixture of organic and chemical manures, and that it cannot be extended to cover a case of sale of a mixture whose components are only chemical manures. It is stated that the manure mixture of one or more of the articles mentioned in sub-items (1) to (15) in item 21 and one or more of the organic manures have specifically been defined as chemical fertilisers and, therefore, it was held in that decision that a mixture of organic and chemical manure was a different chemical fertiliser li