JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL The applicants, who deal in tea under the name and style of Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supply Co. claimed a deduction from their turnover of the sales of goods which had been purchased by them from registered dealers on or after the appointed day mentioned in section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. That deduction has not been allowed by the authorities below in view of the proviso "that the goods have not been processed or altered in any manner after such purchase". It was found that they prepared new blends by mixing different varieties of tea purchased by them and sold such new blend of tea. It was contended that the mixing of different varieties of tea should not be regarded as "processing". The Additional Collector of Sales Tax has held that by the blending of different varieties of tea new mixtures are prepared, that the value and utility of the original are thereby altered, and that, therefore, the blending of different kinds of tea amounts to processing. The applicants filed an affidavit before the Additional Collector in which it was stated that the mixing of different kinds of tea was done by hand, no machinery or chemical process for the purpose being employed and that, therefore, it should not be held that there had been any processing. 2. In Chotalal Raghunathiji v. The State of Bombay (1 S.T.D. 65), it was held that the word "process" appeared to have a wider connotation than the word "manufacture", and that the main thing which was necessary for holding a person to be a manufacturer was that he should, by some process or series of processes, make a certain kind of goods out of another or so alter or change the original thing or material as to make it into something which was recognised commercially as different from the original stuff. In the case of Motilal Ramchandra Oswal v. The State of Bombay (2 S.T.D. 33), this Tribunal, however, held that the boiling of butter into ghee did not amount to processing. In our opinion, and also in view of the earlier decision, this view appears to be erroneous, and we, accordingly, overrule the decision in the latter case. Mr. In the case of Motilal Ramchandra Oswal v. The State of Bombay (2 S.T.D. 33), this Tribunal, however, held that the boiling of butter into ghee did not amount to processing. In our opinion, and also in view of the earlier decision, this view appears to be erroneous, and we, accordingly, overrule the decision in the latter case. Mr. N. A. Palkhiwala for the applicants, however, has argued that as the mixtures were the result of mixing tea leaves and tea dust and as after the mixture the ingredients could be separated into the original varieties, it should not be held that there has been any processing in such mixing of the varieties. We do not think that this contention is tenable, as what was sold was a distinct species of goods different from the original varieties and as the mixing of the varieties was not a haphazard process but required a certain amount of skill in that a certain proportion of each of the original ingredients had to be mixed; and the resulting mixtures were intended to meet a demand which was different from the demand that might exist for the original ingredients in the market. In North Bengal Stores Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue, Bengal ([1946] 1 S.T.C. 157), the High Court of Calcutta dealt with a case where different drugs had been mixed by a dispensing chemist according to the prescription of a physician, and in considering the connotation of the expression "to manufacture goods" observed, "The drugs may or may not be transformed into a different matter. The mixture may become a chemical compound in which the drugs used may have been transformed into a totally different thing in their character and properties, or it may result in what is called a mechanical or physical mixture, in which each drug retains its original properties. But in either case the resulting mixture is a distinct product brought into being in a particular form suitable for the particular use for which it is intended and capable of being sold or supplied for a price ................... But in either case the resulting mixture is a distinct product brought into being in a particular form suitable for the particular use for which it is intended and capable of being sold or supplied for a price ................... This finished product is different from the ingredients with which it is made, just in the same sense as an ornament is different from the lump of gold or a pair of boots different from the leather or a suit of clothes is different from the cloth or a box is different from the wood, but it is the article which he brings into being for sale in course of his business". This view, in our opinion, will apply with equal force to the lpresent case. In Hiralal Jitmal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1957] 8 S.T.C. 325), it was held that to constitute "manufacture" for the purposes of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, "it is not necessary that there must be a transformation in the material and that the transformation must have progressed so far that the manufactured article becomes commercially known as another and different article from the raw materials. All that is necessary is that the material should have been charged or modified by man's art or industry so as to make it capable of being sold in an acceptable form to satisfy some want, or desire, or fancy or taste of man". In our opinion these observations apply to processing also; and we think that it is not possible to hold that the mixing of different varieties of tea in this case does not amount to processing. It is also to be observed that the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 of the Act of 1953 not only speaks of the goods having been processed but also of their having been "altered in any manner" after the purchase. This latter expression seems to be wider in intention than the word "process". We have no doubt that the teas which were purchased by the applicants before being mixed or blended were "altered" within the meaning of the proviso. 3. Mr. This latter expression seems to be wider in intention than the word "process". We have no doubt that the teas which were purchased by the applicants before being mixed or blended were "altered" within the meaning of the proviso. 3. Mr. Palkiwala also tried to make out a new case, namely, that a part of the goods in question was sold as orange pekoe, the original teas also having been called by the same name, so that the mixture, so far as that part of the goods is concerned, cannot be said to have resulted in a separate or distinct article. We do not find that any attempt was made to make out this case, which involves a question of fact, before the authorities below, and we, accordingly, did not allow Mr. Palkhiwala to develop this case. 4. In the result, the application is dismissed. The assessee applied to the Sales Tax Tribunal to state a case to the High Court and the Tribunal made the following statement of case on 25th June, 1958 :- STATEMENT OF CASE This is an application for reference to the High Court of certain questions said to arise out of our decision in Revision Application No. 198 of 1957 dated the 16th December, 1957. The facts of the case are as follows : 2. The applicants, who deal in tea under the name and style of Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supply Co., claimed a deduction from their turnover of the sales of goods which had been purchased by them from registered dealers on or after the appointed day mentioned in section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. That deduction had not been allowed by the authorities below in view of the proviso "that the goods have not been processed or altered in any manner after such purchase". It was contended that the mixing of different varieties of tea should not be regarded as "processing". The Additional Collector of Sales Tax had held that by the blending of different kinds of tea new mixtures were prepared, that the value and utility of the original were thereby altered, and that, therefore, the blending of different kinds of tea amounted to processing. The Additional Collector of Sales Tax had held that by the blending of different kinds of tea new mixtures were prepared, that the value and utility of the original were thereby altered, and that, therefore, the blending of different kinds of tea amounted to processing. The applicants filed an affidavit before the Additional Collector in which it was stated that the mixing of different kinds of tea had been done by hand, no machinery or chemical process for the purpose being employed and that, therefore, it should not be held that there had been any processing. We held that the mixing of different varieties of tea amounted to processing and that what had been sold was a distinct species of goods different from the original varieties, particularly as the mixing of the varieties was not a haphazard process but required a certain amount of skill in that a certain proportion of each of the original ingregients had to be mixed; and the resulting mixtures were intended to meet a demand which was different from the demand that might exist for the original ingredients in the market. We also referred to the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 of the Act of 1953, and held that the teas which had been purchased by the applicants before being mixed or blended had been altered within the meaning of the proviso. Mr. Palkiwala also tried to make out a new case, namely, that a part of the goods in question had been sold as orange pekoe, the original teas also having been called by the same name, so that the mixture, so far as that part of the goods was concerned, could not be said to have resulted in a separate or distinct article. We did not find that any attempt had been made to make out this case, which involved a question of fact, before the authorities below, and we, accordingly, did not allow Mr. Palkiwala to develop this case. 3. We did not find that any attempt had been made to make out this case, which involved a question of fact, before the authorities below, and we, accordingly, did not allow Mr. Palkiwala to develop this case. 3. The questions proposed by the applicants for reference are as follows :- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the plea that the teas had been "altered" within the meaning of the proviso to section 8(a) of the Act when it was nowhere the case of the Department either before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, or the Additional Collector of Sales Tax that the teas had been "altered" after the purchase; (b) If the answer to question (a) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the petitioners had "altered" the tea purchased by them from registered dealers within the meaning of the statute; (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the petitioners had "processed" the tea purchased by them from registered dealer within the meaning of the statute; (d) Whether there is any evidence on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that what was sold by the petitioners was a distinct species of goods different from the "original varieties"; (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to a deduction from their turnover of sales, under section 8(a) of the Act, of the amount of Rs. 1,17,052-6-0 being sales of goods purchased from registed dealers on or after the appointed day; (f) Whether the Tribunal erred or misdirected itself in law, in not allowing the petitioners to show that, in any event, a part of the goods sold by the petitioners were not "processed or altered" as the goods in question were sold as orange pekoe, the original teas purchased by the petitioners also having been called by the same name and only teas of the same variety grown on different planatations were mixed together; and (g) If the answer to question (f) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case the petitioners are entitled to a deductions from their turnover of sales, under section 8(a) of the Act, of the amount of the aforesaid sales of orange pekoes. We think that the following questions would sufficiently cover the contentions of the applicants, and we, accordingly, refer them for decision to the High Court : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioners are entitled to a deduction from their turnover of sales under clause (a) of section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the amount of Rs. 1,17,052-6-0 being sales of goods purchased from registered dealers on or after the appointed day ? and (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the applicants to show that a part of the goods sold by them had not been processed or alterted, as the goods in question had been sold as orange pekoe, the original teas purchased also having been called by the same name and only teas of the same variety grown on different plantations had been mixed together ?" Advocates Appeared: N. A. Palkhiwala, for the assessees. D. P. Madon, for the respondent. Cases Referred: Hiralal Jitmal V. Commissioner Of Income-tax. Commissioner Of Sales Tax V. Damodar Padmanath Rao. Commissioner Of Sales Tax V. Dunken Coffee Manufacturing Co. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. V. The State Of Tamil Nadu. Sudhir Ch. Mukherjee V. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, And Other.... Om Prakash Gupta V. The Commercial Tax Officer And Others. State Of Maharashtra V. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Chandreswar Singh V. State Of Assam And Others. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Another V. Union Of India And Others. Sudhir Ch. Mukherjee V. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, And Other.... Om Prakash Gupta V. The Commercial Tax Officer And Others. State Of Maharashtra V. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Chandreswar Singh V. State Of Assam And Others. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Another V. Union Of India And Others. The State Of Gujarat V. Oil & Natural Gas Commission. Badrinarayan V. State Of M. P. And Others. Hind Nippon Rural Industries Private Limited V. State Of Karnataka. State Of Maharashtra V. Shiv Datt & Sons. (And Another Appeal). Food Corporation Of India V. State Of Maharashtra. Laxmi Oil Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay V. Mahalaxmi Stores. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay V. Rajshree Electronics. Jodhpur Mukhya Mandi Vyapar Sangh V. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department .... Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited V. State Of Karnataka. Mehta Food Pvt., Ltd. V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Others. (And Other Cases). State Of Maharashtra, Appellant V. M/s. Shiv Datta And Sons And Others, Respondents. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. V. Ramco Coke Industries. JUDGMENT SHAH, J. - Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. carry on business as dealers in tea in Bombay. They have been registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. who will be hereafter referred to as "the assessees" purchased diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical processes mixed up the brands of tea purchased in bulk by them and sold the tea as tea mixture. The mixing, however, is not haphazard but according to the formula which was evolved by the assessees. In the assessment of sales tax the assessees claimed that the value of the tea purchased by them should be deducted from the turnover under section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Sales Tax Authorities did not accept the contention of the assessees having regard to the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 and did not allow deduction for the value of the tea purchased out of the turnover. The Sales Tax Tribunal also affirmed the view of the Sales Tax Authorities. The Sales Tax Authorities did not accept the contention of the assessees having regard to the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 and did not allow deduction for the value of the tea purchased out of the turnover. The Sales Tax Tribunal also affirmed the view of the Sales Tax Authorities. The Sales Tax Tribunal has at the instance of the assessees, referred the questions : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioners (assessees) are entitled to a deduction from their turnover of sales under clause (a) of section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, of the amount of Rs. 1,17,052-6-0, being sales of goods purchased from registered dealers on or after the appointed day ? and (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the applicants (assessees) to show that a part of the goods sold by them had not been processed or altered, as the goods in question had been sold as orange pekoe, the original teas purchased also having been called by the same name and only teas of the same variety grown on different plantations had been mixed together ?" Section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, so far as is "subject to the provisions of section 7, there shall be levied a sales tax on the turnover of sales of goods specified in column 1 of Schecdule B at the rate, if any, specified against them in column 2 of the said Schedule, after deducting from such turnover - (a) sales of goods - (i) which have been purchased from a registered dealer on or after the appointed day, or (ii) on the purchase of which the dealer has paid or is liable to pay the purchase tax : Provided that the goods have not been processed or altered in any manner after such purchase." In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessees have purchased from registered dealers tea leaves in bulk after the appointed day and the sole question which falls to be determined is whether the assessees are entitled to deduct from their turnover the value of the goods purchased from registered dealers. The assessees contend that they are entitled to do so. The assessees contend that they are entitled to do so. The sales tax department contends that the goods which have been purchased by the assessees have been processed or altered after the purchase, and, therefore, deduction cannot be permitted. We are, therefore, called upon to decide whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there has been a processing or alteration in any manner of the different brands or varieties of tea purchased by the assessees. The expression "process" has not been defined in the Act. According to Webster's Dictionary "process" means "to subject to some special process or treatment, to subject (especially raw material) to a process of manufacture, development or preparation for the market, etc., to convert into marketable form, as livestock by slaughtering, grain by milling, cotton by spinning, milk by pasteurising, fruits and vegetables by sorting and repacking". In the present case, there has been nothing but a manual application of energy to the different quantities of tea purchased by the assessees in certain proportions so as to evolve a mixture of tea which was sold as tea mixture of the assessees. In our view, the quantities of tea purchased by the assessees cannot since the date of the purchases be regarded as processed within the meaning of the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 of the Act. There is not even application of mechanical force so as to subject the commodity to a process, manufacture, development, or preparation. The commodity has remained in the same condition. It is true that in the preparation of the tea mixture which is marketed, there may be some skill involved. But that, in our judgment, cannot be regarded as processing within the meaning of the proviso. It is urged on behalf of the sales tax department that in any event there is alteration in the goods and if there be alteration in the goods since the purchase, the value of the goods paid to the registered dealer cannot be deducted from the turnover. It cannot however be said that in the preparation of the tea mixture there is any alteration in the goods. Undoubtedly by mixing up the different varieties of tea purchased by the assessees there resulted a mixture in which the individuality of the components was obscured, but that in our judgment is not altenation within the meaning of the Act. It cannot however be said that in the preparation of the tea mixture there is any alteration in the goods. Undoubtedly by mixing up the different varieties of tea purchased by the assessees there resulted a mixture in which the individuality of the components was obscured, but that in our judgment is not altenation within the meaning of the Act. The alteration contemplated by the legislature is some alteration in the nature or character of the goods. In the present case, in our view, there is neither processing nor alteration in any manner of the goods purchased by the assessees. On that view of the case, the question No. 1 will be answered as follows :- "The assessees are entitled to a deduction from their turnover of sales under clause (a) of section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, of the amount of Rs. 1,17,052-6-0." On that view of the case, the second question need not be answered. Assessees will be entitled to their costs from the State of Bombay. No order on the notice of motion. Reference answered accordingly.