The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'manufacturer' under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, and its application to the activities of the assessee.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 13 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, by the Sales Tax Commissioner. The assessee is a printer and dyer of textile cloth purchased by Mm and carries on the business of selling the printed and dyed textiles in various forms. In the assessment year 1950-51 the Sales Tax Officer levied on him a tax of Rs. 1,486-12-6 in respect of sale transactions of printed and dyed cloth sold by him. Before the Sales Tax Officer it was contended on behalf of the assessee that he was not a manufacturer; that the cloth purchased by him had been manufactured by textile mills and that on that cloth sales tax had already been levied and further that the notification issued under Section 9 of the Act did not levy any sales tax at the point of processing. This contention was rejected by the assessing authority. The assessee then preferred an appeal before the appellate Judge. This was rejected. He then took the matter in revision to the commissioner of Sales Tax. The learned Commissioner rejected the revision petition. He has now, at the instance of the assessee, stated this case on the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:

"1. Whether the assessee is not a manufacturer but a mere processor and as such not liable to pay sales tax on the sale of such goods? Whether the fact that the sales tax having been recovered on the sale of cloth by the manufacturing mills or by the importer will prevent recovery of the sales tax on the sale of dyed and printed goods under section 5 (1) of the Sales Tax Act? Whether by printing and colouring of cloth, by a dealer a new marketable commodity comes into existence so as to attract the Madhya sharat Sales Tax Act?"

( 2 ) THE relevant provisions of the Act are Section 3 (1) (b) and the provisions containing the defl-ritions of the expressions 'dealer', 'manufacturer' and 'goods'. Under Section 3 (1) (b) as it stood at the material time and before it was amended by the Madhya Bharat Amendment Act No. 11 of 1955, every dealer who was a manufacturer or processor find whose turnover in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeded Rs. 5,000 was liable to pay tax on his taxable turnover in respect of sales and supplies of goods effected in Madhya Bharat from the 1st day of May, 1950. Section 2 (k) defines 'manufacturer' as a dealer who from materials produces goods by manual or animal labour or by machinery. 'dealer' has been defined in Section 2 (f) as "any person or association of persons carrying on the business of selling or supplying of goods. . . . . " 'goods', as defined in section 2 (g), mean all kinds of movable property other than certain things enumerated in the section.

( 3 ) MR. Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the assessee was not a manufacturer but only a processor; that 'manufacture meant transforming or fashioning of raw materials into a change of form of altogether a new character, so that the manufactured article was a new and different article from the materials used; that when the applicant printed and dyed textiles, he engaged himself in the business of processing and not manufacturing. It was pointed out that the use of two different words, namely, 'manufacturer' and 'processor' in Section 3 (1) (b)showed that a manufacturer was a person different from a processor and that this conclusion was further reinforced by the amendments made by Act No. 11 of 1955, which deleted the words 'or processor' from Section 3 (1) (b) and added the words 'and also includes a processor in the definition of ' manufacturer given in section 2 (k ). It was submitted that as the notification issued under Section 5 did not levy any sales tax on a processor, the assessee was not liable to pay any sales taxon sale transactions of printed and dyed textiles sold by him. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Wasudeo, (1955) 6 STC 30 (A) and State of bihar v. Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. , (1956