( 1 ) THESE sales-tax revision petitions, one, by the assegsee and the other by the. State-are directed against the, order of the Karnataka, Sales Tax appellte Tribvnal, Banglore, made, in STA. 597/72 on 19-4-1973. ( 2 ) THE assessea is a, deafer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ). For the year 1969-70, the assessee returned a, total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,24,686-67. But the, Addi. Commi. Tax Officer, iii Circle, Hubli who is the, assessing authority determined the, total and taxable, turnover at Rs. 8,85,407-09' which included a, turnover of Rs. 2,40,223-84 relating to the purchase, of paddy, and a sum of Rs. 10,183-25 relating to the purchase of firewood. The assessee contended that purchases of paddy were made, from agriculturists or non-registered dealers and as such are not liable to be taxed under S. 6 of the Act. The said contention was rejected by the, Deputy Commr. of Comml/ Taxes, Dharwar, in the appeal preferred by the assesses. On second appeal to the STAT, Bangalore, it was held that the purchase turnover relating to firewood is not taxable, but the purchase turnover relating to paddy is liable to tax. ( 3 ) THE asessee's revision petition relates to the levy of tax on the purchase turnover of paddy. The revision petition by the State relates to the exclusion of the turnover of Rs. 10,000 and odd relating to the firewood purchase. ( 4 ) IT was urged bv Sri B V. Katageri, learned Counsel for the petitioner in STRP. 93 of 1973 that the assesses is a dealer who manufactures beaten rice from the paddv purchased from agriculturists or non-registered dealers and that S. 6 of the Act is not attracted where the seller is not a dealer or where he is a dealer his total turnover is less than Rs. 25,000. Sri Chandrakantaraj Urs. Sr. High Court Govt Advocate appearing for the State argued that the view taken bv the Tribunal firewood is not consumed in the manufacture of beeter rice is erropeous. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commr of sales Tax, (1969) 24 STC. 843. 25,000. Sri Chandrakantaraj Urs. Sr. High Court Govt Advocate appearing for the State argued that the view taken bv the Tribunal firewood is not consumed in the manufacture of beeter rice is erropeous. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commr of sales Tax, (1969) 24 STC. 843. ( 5 ) THE auestions for determination in these revision pations are: - (1) whether the purchase turnover of paddy from agricultureits or non-registered dealers whose turnover is less than Rs 25,000 is not liable to be brought to tax under S. 6 of the Act and (2) Whether the view taken bv the Tribunal that the purchase turnover relating to firewood is not taxable under S. 6 of the Act. is right? paddv is one of the goods, sale of which is taxable under S. 5 (1) of the Act The charge to tax is made under S. 5. Sub-secs. (1) and (5) (a) of S. 5 of the Act which are relevant for the purpose read thus : section 6 which was introduced bv Mysore Act 9 of 1970 reads thus : " 6. Levy of purchase tax under certain circumstance the language of S. 6 is rather involved and the meaning of the same is not at all clear. ( 6 ) S. 7 of M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959. which is in pari materia with s. 6 of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in ganesh Prasad Dixits case (1 ). In the said case, the assesses was a firm of building contractors who purchased building materials and used them in the course of their business The dealers who sold the building materials were exempt from payment of tax. In the said case, the assesses was a firm of building contractors who purchased building materials and used them in the course of their business The dealers who sold the building materials were exempt from payment of tax. Question arose as to whether the contractor who had purchased the building materials was liable to be assessed in respect of the turnover renting to purchase of building materials under S. 7 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which reads:" Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods, in circumstances in which na tax under S. 6 is payable on the sale price of such goods and either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or disposes of such goods In any manner other than bv way of sale in the State or despatches them to a place outside the State except as a, direct result of sale or purchase, in the sourse of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate a,t which it would have been leviable on the sale price of such goods under Section 6. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) SHAH, J. (as he then was) dealing with the contention that the disputed turnover was not liable to tax under S. 7 of the M. P. General Salse Tax act, 1959, stated thus :" The phraseology used in that section is somewhat involved, but the meaning of the section is fairly plain. Where no sales tax is payable under S. 6 on the sale, price of the good, purchase, tax is payable by a deader who buys taxable, goods in the course of his business, and (1) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or (2) consumes such goods otherwise, or (3) disposes of such goqds in any manner other than by way of sale in the State or (4) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a, direct result of sale or purchase in the course. of inter State, trade or commerce. of inter State, trade or commerce. The assessees are registered as dealers and they have purchased building materials in the course of their business; the building materials are taxable under the Act, and the appellants have consumed the materials otherwise than in the manufacture of goods for sale and for a profit-motive. On the plain words of Sec 7 of the purchase price, is taxable. "s. 6 in the, M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959 corresponds to S. 5 in the Act. The sellers of the building materials were nqt liable to tax under s. 6 and therefore, it was held that the purchaser became liable under S. 7. ( 8 ) THE learned High Court Govt. Advocate submitted that the ratio of the decision in Ganesh Prasad Dixit's case (1) is equally applicable to the instant case and therefore, the purchase turnover relating to paddy is taxable under the Act.- Sri Kategeri relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Kendoswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 28 STC. 227 , wherein it was held that sales tax cannot be levied at the purchase point of sales inasmuch as the transactions were not liable to tax at all under the Act The language of S. 7a of the tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is not in pori materia with the language of S. 6 of the Act whereas S 6 of the Act is in pari materia with s. 7 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit's cage (I), it cannot be contended any longer that if the sellers are not taxable because their individual turnovers were lessthan Rs. 25,000, the purchaser cannot be brought to charge under Section 6. ( 9 ) THE meaning of S. 6 of the Act which is not at all clear appears to us to b this : Where the sale attracts the charge to tax under S 5 (1) of the act but on account of other prqvisions contained in the Act the transaction is exempt from tax, such sales though not taxable in the hands of the seller, are taxable at the purchase point under S. 6. In order to attract the charge to tax under S. 5 (1) of the Act it must be shown that there is a sale by a, dealer. If the sale is nqt by a dealer there is no initial charge at all under Section 5 (1) of the Act. The word ' dealer' has been defined under S 2 (1) (k) of the Act thus :- according to the, above section, a person who carries op the business of buying, sealing etc. is a deader but an agriculturist who sells exclusively agricultural produce grown on land cultivated by him personally shall not be deemed to be a dealer within the maining of cl. (k) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 2 of the Act. If the assessee has purchased paddy from an agriculturist who has grovrn the paddy on the land cultivated by him personally he is not to be deemed to be a dealer. It is not enough if the seller is an agriculturist. The waller may be selling paddy grown on the land cultivated by a tenant or he may sell paddy purchased from others. If the seller sells exclusively the paddy grown on the land cultivated by him personally, then he is not a dealer and in such an event there is no charge to tax at all under sub-sec (1) of S. 5 of the Act. In such cases, the Department cannot invoke the provisions of S. 6 of the Act to levy tax at the purchase point. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the assessee has merely stated that he purchased paddy from agriculturists or non-registered dealers The assessing authority as well as the appellate authorities have not bestowed their attention to the determination of the question whether the sellers were selling paddy exclusively grown by them on their land All that is stated is that the sellers are agriculturists or non-registered dealers. The matter therefore, requires further investigation and fresh adjudication. ( 11 ) SO far as the turnover relating to firewood is concerned, the Tribunal is not right in the view it has taken that firewood is used for generating energy and therefore it is not consumed for the manufacture of beaten rice. The Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Abdul Bakshi and Bros , (1964) 15 STC, 644 SC. The Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Abdul Bakshi and Bros , (1964) 15 STC, 644 SC. has held that tanning bark purchased by the dealer and used in the process of tanning is liable to tax as tanning bark is brought for consumption in manu facturing an article for sale. In view of the said decision, it is clear that the view tahen bv the Tribunal in regard to the purchase of firewood cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) AS already stated, since neither the assessing authority nor the appellate, authorities have given any finding as to whether the sellers are dealers as defined under S. 2 (1) (k) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be remitted to the assessing authority for fresh investigation and assessment in the light of this order. Accordingly, these revision petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment in according with law in the light of this order. Parties will bear their awn costs. --- *** --- .