JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by C. V. JANI, J. - The following questions have been referred to this Court for its decision by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that exercise of powers under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to disallow the set-off allowed by the Sales Tax Officer was proper, legal and valid ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Tribunal is right in law in not accepting the plea of the applicant that it was entitled to claim set-off either under rule 41 or rule 43 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in respect of the tax paid on the purchases of cream which is converted into butter for sale ?" 2. The applicant, M/s. Polson Model Dairy, was at the relevant time engaged in the business of selling butter both locally as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, and part of the butter was also despatched by the applicant on consignment basis to its branches outside the State of Gujarat for the purpose of sale. The butter so sold by the applicant was obtained and prepared from cream which it purchased either locally from registered dealers, as well as unregistered dealers, or prepared out of milk purchased by it. The reference to this Court has been made in respect of assessments regarding three calendar years, namely, 1967, 1968 and 1969. 3. The butter so sold by the applicant was obtained and prepared from cream which it purchased either locally from registered dealers, as well as unregistered dealers, or prepared out of milk purchased by it. The reference to this Court has been made in respect of assessments regarding three calendar years, namely, 1967, 1968 and 1969. 3. The following are the relevant facts regarding the long-drawn litigation the applicant had to pass through in order to claim set-off under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules : (i) The applicant which purchased cream as aforestated claimed that the said cream was being resold by it in the form of butter and so it was entitled to set-off on the sale of butter inasmuch as exemption from the payment of sales tax was denied to it on the ground that the preparation of butter out of cream would not amount to "manufacture" in view of the technical definition of the term "manufacture" contained in section 2 of the Act. It further claimed that it had not purchased cream without payment of sales tax by issuing a requisite certificate and so the same goods should not be subjected to double taxation. Its appeals before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal in respect of calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966 were pending when the Sales Tax Officer passed assessment orders in respect of the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 on July 31, 1972, October 27, 1972 and February 28, 1973 respectively by allowing the applicant's claim for set-off under rule 43 of the Rules framed under section 74 read with section 42 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer held that the cream from which the butter was prepared could be said to have been resold by the applicant as the process of preparing the butter out of cream was excluded from the purview of the definition of the term "manufacture". (ii) These three assessment orders were not challenged by the Revenue, but the applicant challenged the quantum of set-off granted by the Sales Tax Officer by filing first appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. (ii) These three assessment orders were not challenged by the Revenue, but the applicant challenged the quantum of set-off granted by the Sales Tax Officer by filing first appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner having found that in the applicant's appeals relating to the previous assessment years 1963, 1964 and 1965 the Sales Tax Tribunal has remanded the matters to the Sales Tax Officer for working out and recalculating the amount of set-off under rule 43 of the Bombay Rules by following certain norms laid down by it in its order, he also remanded the matters to the Sales Tax Officer for determination of the quantum of admissible set-off according to the directions given by the Tribunal in the appeals pertaining to the previous years. These orders of remand were passed on October 27, 1975. (iii) After the remand the Sales Tax Officer passed fresh assessment order on August 5, 1976 by which he totally disallowed the claim of set-off on the ground that the butter sold by the applicant was not the same cream as purchased by it. He also held that the applicant could not claim set-off even as a "manufacturer" in view of specific exclusion of the process of preparation of butter from cream from the definition of "manufacture" under rule 3 of the Bombay Rules. (iv) The applicant again challenged the said assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner, and pointed out that the Sales Tax Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction and travelled beyond the orders of remand by stating that the applicant was neither a reseller nor a manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this submission and allowed the appeals and again remanded the cases back to the Sales Tax Officer for redetermining the claim of set-off in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Tribunal. This order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on January 13, 1977. (v) after the second remand, the Sales Tax Officer passed fresh orders of assessment on July 11, 1977, allowing the set-off for an amount of Rs. 58,037 for the year 1967, Rs. 23,749 for the year 1968, and Rs. 11,021 for the year 1969. This order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on January 13, 1977. (v) after the second remand, the Sales Tax Officer passed fresh orders of assessment on July 11, 1977, allowing the set-off for an amount of Rs. 58,037 for the year 1967, Rs. 23,749 for the year 1968, and Rs. 11,021 for the year 1969. (vi) The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax thereafter proposed to revise the said assessment orders suo motu under section 57 of the Act and after hearing the applicant he revised the three assessment orders and completely disallowed the set-off granted to the applicant by passing the orders dated January 17, 1978. (vii) The applicant, therefore, preferred three revision applications Nos. 10 of 1978, 11 of 1978 and 12 of 1978, challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order as being without jurisdiction, having been passed without giving a requisite proper notice. The Tribunal allowed the revision applications and set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and resorted the orders of the Sales Tax Officer on November 9, 1978. (viii) The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, served a notice on the applicant on September 9, 1980, in the prescribed form 40, proposing to revise the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, as well as the Assistant Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner passed three revisional orders on October 30, 1980, disallowing the set-off as claimed. (ix) The applicant challenged the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner by filing three revision applications Nos. 47 of 1980, 48 of 1980 and 49 of 1980 before the Tribunal which was pleased to dismiss the same on March 25, 1983. (x) The applicant filed Reference Applications Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1984 for raising the aforesaid two questions for determination of this Court and accordingly these questions have been referred to us. In order to comprehend the scope of these questions we will have to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The terms "manufacture" and "resale" are defined in clauses (17) and (26) of section 2 of the Act. In order to comprehend the scope of these questions we will have to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The terms "manufacture" and "resale" are defined in clauses (17) and (26) of section 2 of the Act. Clause (17) of section 2 of the Act reads as under : "(17) 'manufacture', with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means producing, making extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed." Though the ordinary purpose of manufacture is to bring into existence a different commercial commodity, the term "manufacture" has been defined with reference to certain activities to be carried out in respect of any goods, and it specifically excludes such manufactures or manufacturing process as may be prescribed. The term "prescribed" means prescribed by Rules as per clause (21). In the context reference to rule 3 which excludes certain manufacturing process would be necessary. Rule 3 excludes 19 types of manufacturing process from the meaning of the term "manufacture" and clause (xv) thereof excludes "the preparing of butter from cream or ghee from butter" from the meaning of "manufacture". So, as per the meaning specifically assigned to the term "manufacture" and manufacturing process the preparation of butter from cream would not be included in such a process and the question of granting any set-off available in the case of "manufacture" under rule 41, would not arise. Clause (26) of section 2 of the Act gives the meaning of the term "resale". "(26) 'resale', for the purposes of sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, means a sale of purchased goods - (i) in the same form in which they were purchased, or (ii) without doing anything to them which amounts to, or results in a manufacture, or (iii) being goods specified in any entry in Schedule B, without doing anything to them which takes them out of the description thereof in that entry, and the word "resale" shall be construed accordingly;". 4. 4. So far as the present case is concerned, sub-clause (ii) of the definition of "resale" will be applicable, as admittedly the purchased goods, namely, cream were not sold in the same form in which they were purchased as contemplated by clause (i), and the preparation of butter out of cream could not be said to be "manufacture" as per the exclusion contained in rule 3(xv). No doubt, this meaning of "resale" is given for the purpose of sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and not for all purposes. Section 12 of the Act provides for giving deduction of the goods purchased for resale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, if the authorised dealer who purchases the goods issues a certificate in the prescribed form. Rule 43 of the Rules provides for drawback, set-off, etc., of tax paid on goods sold by the course of inter-State trade or commerce or of export. The relevant portion of rule 43 reads as under : "In assessing the amount of tax payable in respect of any period by a registered dealer (hereinafter referred to in this rule as 'claimant dealer') the Commissioner shall grant his a drawback, set-off or, as the case may be, refund of the following amounts, that is to say :- (a)(i) the amount of sales tax or the general sales tax or, as the case may be, both recovered from him by a registered dealer, on the purchase of goods made otherwise than against a certificate under section 11 or sub-section (1) of section 12. ......" This sub-rule implies that if the registered dealer purchasing the goods without issuing a certificate under section 12 has paid sales tax at the time purchase he would be entitled to set-off in case he sells the goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. This takes us again to section 12 of the Act which specifically provides that if the authorised dealer purchasing goods certifies in the prescribed form, i.e., form No. 14 that the goods are purchased for resale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce within a period of nine months from the date of such purchase, then the sales of such goods will be deducted from the turnover of sales and no sales tax will be levied at the time of purchasing such goods. If, however, no such deduction is claimed and no certificate issued, the purchaser will be able to claim a set-off as per rule 43. Incidentally, we may also refer to rule 41 which provides for drawback, set-off, etc., of tax paid by the manufacturer. The relevant portion of rule 41 which may apply to the dealer in question reads as under : "In assessing the amount of tax payable in respect of any period by a registered dealer, who manufactures taxable goods for sale (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the 'manufacturing dealer'), the Commissioner shall grant him a drawback, set-off or, as the case may be, a refund of the aggregate of the following sums, that is to say - (a) to (d) ................... (e) a sum recovered from the manufacturing dealer by another registered dealer by way of sales tax or general sales tax or both, as the case may be, on the purchase by him, of goods from such registered dealer, ..................... Provided that such goods are used by him in the manufacture of taxable goods sold or in the packing of such taxable goods sold or in the packing of such taxable goods." Since the process of preparing butter out of cream is taken out of the meaning of "manufacture" by rule 3, the benefit of rule 41 is not available to the applicant as "manufacturer". 5. Mr. 5. Mr. S. L. Mody, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that, (i) Since the process of preparing butter from cream is excluded from the meaning of the term "manufacture" as per rule 3(xv) of the Rules, what was sold by the applicant was cream itself, and the sale thereof would be covered by clause (ii) of the definition "resale" contained in clause (26) of section 2 which specifically provides that sale of the purchased goods, i.e., cream without doing anything which would amount to, or result in, "manufacture" would amount to "resale" even though it is not a sale of cream in the same form in which it was purchased; (ii) Though the meaning of resale contained in clause (26) has a reference to sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, section 12 brings in the concept of exemption from sales tax at the time of purchase, if the applicant had purchased cream by issuing a certificate in form No. 14, and in that case, he would not have been required to pay the tax at the time purchasing cream; so he would have been required to pay tax only once, that is, at the time of selling butter; (iii) The very purpose of framing the Rules regarding drawback or set-off or refund is to see that the tax is recovered as a single point levy and the dealer is not required to bear the burden of double taxation on the same goods which would be passed on ultimately to the consumer. (iv) The three assessment orders of the Sales Tax Officer passed initially in the years 1972 and 1973 had become final so far as the Revenue was concerned, as they were not challenged by being taken up in revision within the prescribed period of five years under section 57 of the Act. It was also submitted that since the principle of allowing the set-off was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner twice, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to enter upon suo motu revision of the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1980, as the Assistant Commissioner had remanded the matters only for the purpose of working out the figures and the amount to be granted in set-off. 6. 6. On applying our anxious thought to the relevant provision of the Act, and the Rules, it appears that Mr. Mody is completely right in making the first three submissions, and partly right so far as the fourth submission is concerned. 7. Preparation of butter from cream purchased by the applicant would not amount to "manufacture" in view of the exclusion contained in rule 3(xv) and so the benefit of rule 41 regarding set-off in case of "manufacture" would not be available to the applicant. At the same time, however, the definition of the term "resale" contained in section 2(26) comes into play, and as butter is prepared out of the cream purchased by the applicant without indulging in the process of "manufacture", the sale of butter would amount to sale of cream, though not in the same form, since butter is prepared by separating buttermilk from the cream. 8. The submission made on behalf of the Revenue that this definition of "resale" is in the context of sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 only, and not for any other purpose, does not held the case of the Revenue, inasmuch as section 12 itself speaks of exemption from payment of sales tax at the time of purchasing cream, if the applicant had issued a certificate in the prescribed form. Instead, the applicant paid tax on the purchase of cream even though the goods were purchased for "resale" in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, after converting it into butter without adopting the process of "manufacture". It, therefore, follows that the applicant who is an authorised dealer would be entitled to claim a set-off in respect of the amount which he had already paid by way of tax at the time of purchase of cream. 9. The purpose of framing Rules for granting drawback, set-off or refund is well-expressed in Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1982] 49 STC 322 (Guj). The Division Bench of this Court laid down that the single point levy of which statutory deductions are an integral part, is the thread that runs through the fabric of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court laid down that the single point levy of which statutory deductions are an integral part, is the thread that runs through the fabric of the Act. It was observed that while enacting the Act, the Legislature was conscious of the diverse factors such as that though the tax was payable by the dealer, the incidence of tax and the consequential economic burden would fall upon the ultimate consumer and that there was need to safeguard the interests of trade and industry within the State which should not be subjected to such a burden as to put them out of existence or out of market in competition with the trade and industry outside the State. The Division Bench considered the case of a recognised dealer who purchases raw materials from a registered dealer on payment of tax, because he is unable to certify at that stage that the goods sold to him are purchased by him for use by him as raw materials, in the manufacture of taxable goods for sale within the State, but ultimately sells the manufactured goods within the State of Gujarat. It also considered the case of a recognised dealer who purchases raw materials from a dealer who is not a registered dealer. In both such cases, the recognised dealer would have paid tax on the raw materials, although if he had purchased raw materials from a registered dealer, or upon furnishing certificate, he could have purchased those goods without payment of tax, and such a recognised dealer would be entitled to claim set-off of the whole of the tax in respect of the purchase of raw materials made by him and thereby he would be placed in the same position as if he had purchased raw materials from a registered dealer or against a certificate. This principle ultimately would apply in the present case also by the same analogy. 10. In State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt & Sons [1992] 84 STC 497, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether the assessees can be treated as having resold the same goods that they have purchased in order to be eligible for relief under section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The assessees purchased "dry batteries without electrolyte" from the manufacturers. The assessees purchased "dry batteries without electrolyte" from the manufacturers. After receiving the batteries the dealers had to immerse the plates in electrolyte and charge them with electric current for a substantial period before the batteries could be used for the purpose for which they were to be sold. The assessees claimed that they were entitled to deduction of such part of their turnover as represented the resale of goods purchased by them, from a registered dealer. The Supreme Court, therefore, had to consider the question whether the sale of batteries after electrolysis could be said to be resale of the goods which they have purchased from the manufacturers. The Supreme Court considered the definitions of "resale" and "manufacture" which we have referred to above, and held that where substantially the goods purchased are resold, there should be a deduction of the turnover on which purchase tax has already been levied if the provision of law is interpreted in the practical and workable manner. 10-A. Hence we also hold that the sale of butter by the applicant after purchasing cream was actually resale of cream and it would be entitled to set-off under rule 43 of the Rules because Legislature has provided that preparation of "butter" from "cream" is not a manufacturing process. For the purpose of Sales Tax Act it remains the same commodity. 11. So far as the fourth submission of Mr. Mody is concerned, we hold that the Deputy Commissioner could not exercise powers of revision under section 57 of the Act after a period of five years in respect of the orders regarding set-off allowed by the Sales Tax Officer in the years 1972 and 1973. Regarding the additional amount of set-off allowed by the Sales Tax Officer by his subsequent order dated October 11, 1977, it might be open to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his powers of revision, but in view of the conclusion we have arrived at, the orders of set-off passed by the Sales Tax Officer, would be confirmed on merits. 12. The result is that, question No. 1 is partly answered in the negative, in so far as the exercise of revisional powers by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57 of the Act in relation to the set-off already allowed by the Sales Tax Officer in the years 1972 and 1973 was concerned. 12. The result is that, question No. 1 is partly answered in the negative, in so far as the exercise of revisional powers by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57 of the Act in relation to the set-off already allowed by the Sales Tax Officer in the years 1972 and 1973 was concerned. Question No. 2 which is the main question is answered in the negative, and in favour of the assessee. 13. There will be no order as costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.