JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this Court for opinion : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in concluding that even after the process of dyeing, rewinding on paper tubes, labelling and packing, the cotton yarn purchased by the respondent under bill No. CY/54/81 dated July 3, 1981 and sold as 'cotton sewing thread' under invoice No. 959 dated July 14, 1981, does not change its basic characteristic and still remains yarn and no different commercial commodity comes into existence ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'cotton sewing thread' sold by the respondent is nothing but cotton yarn, and would attract no tax being 'resale' as defined under section 2(26) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'cotton sewing thread' sold by the respondent under invoice No. 959 dated July 14, 1981, is nothing but cotton yarn specified in entry B-1-3 although 'cotton thread' is specifically covered by entry 23 in Schedule 'C', Part I of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (as amended with effect from July 1, 1981) ?" 2. The assessee is a dealer in "cotton sewing thread". It purchased "mercerized yarn". The yarn so purchased was thereafter subjected to the process of dyeing. It was thereafter rewound on paper tubes, packed into cellophane paper and labelled and sold as "Mongoose brand mercerized sewing thread". The assessee made an application to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52(1)(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act") seeking determination of the question whether the sales of the cotton sewing thread made by it were liable to tax under the Act and, if so, at what rate. The contention of the assessee was that though the product sold by it was described as "cotton sewing thread", in fact, it was nothing but cotton yarn. The contention of the assessee was that though the product sold by it was described as "cotton sewing thread", in fact, it was nothing but cotton yarn. The Commissioner of Sales Tax examined the entries in different Schedules to the Act and found that, at the material time, "cotton yarn" was covered by entry 3 of Schedule B to the Act, whereas "cotton thread" was specified in entry 23 of Part I of Schedule C to the Act as substituted by Maharashtra Act 32 of 1981 with effect from July 1, 1981. The Commissioner, therefore, held that "cotton yarn" and "cotton sewing thread" were two different items which were also regarded as such by the Legislature by making two separate entries for the same. According to the Commissioner, "cotton yarn" and "cotton thread" having been regarded as two different commercial commodities by the Legislature itself, sale of "cotton thread" by the assessee would not amount to resale of "cotton yarn" within the meaning of section 2(26) of the Act. He therefore held that the activity of converting "cotton yarn" into "sewing thread" amounted to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Act and hence the sales thereof would be subject to levy of tax under the Act. Aggrieved by the above order of the Commissioner, the assessee appealed to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that "cotton sewing thread" sold by the assessee was nothing but "cotton yarn". The Tribunal, therefore, held that the sale of "cotton thread" by the assessee would amount to resale of "cotton yarn" an hence not exigible to tax under the Act. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, Revenue applied for reference of the questions of law arising out of its order. Having satisfied that the proposed questions were questions of law, the Tribunal has referred three questions, which are set out above, to this Court for opinion. 3. Mr. R. V. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that from the facts of the present case, it is clear that in common parlance as well as in trade parlance, "cotton yarn" and "cotton sewing thread" are regarded as two different commercial commodities and that being so, the Commissioner was right in holding that "cotton sewing thread" was different from "cotton yarn" and was taxable as such. The learned counsel further submitted that by making two different entries, one for "cotton yarn" in Schedule B to the Act and another for "cotton threads" in Part I of Schedule C to the Act, the Legislature itself had treated them as two different commodities for the purpose of levy of tax under the Act. In that view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in reversing the order of the Commissioner and holding that cotton sewing thread sold by the assessee was nothing but cotton yarn. Mr. K. B. Bhujale, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the expression "cotton yarn" includes yarn in all shapes and colours. According to him, "cotton sewing thread" is nothing but a variety of "cotton yarn". He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal was right in holding that despite the cotton yarn purchased by the assessee being processed and rewound on paper tubes and wrapped with plastic and labelled and sold as "cotton sewing thread", it remained "cotton yarn". In support of the above contention, counsel relies on the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 and of the Orissa High Court in Srinivasa Distributing Agencies v. State of Orissa [1981] 48 STC 453. 4. It is obvious from the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the real controversy in this case is whether sale of "cotton sewing thread" can be held to be resale of "cotton yarn" purchased by the assessee because if it is held to be a resale of cotton yarn, no tax will be leviable on the sales thereof. "Cotton yarn" appears in Schedule B to the Act, which specifies "declared goods" the sales or purchase of which is subject to sales tax or purchase tax under the Act and the rates of tax. The relevant entry is entry 3 which reads : "3. Cotton yarn, but not including Four paise in Four paise in cotton yarn waste. the rupee. The relevant entry is entry 3 which reads : "3. Cotton yarn, but not including Four paise in Four paise in cotton yarn waste. the rupee. the rupee." The declared goods specified in Schedule B are subject to levy of single point sales tax by virtue of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which contains the restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. Accordingly, section 7 of the Act provides, inter alia, that sales tax shall be levied on the turnover of declared goods specified in Schedule B after deducting from such turnover, the resales of such goods, purchased by the dealer from a registered dealer on payment of tax. "Resale" for the above purpose, as defined in clause 26 of section 2 of the Act, 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 ........." "Manufacture" has been defined in clause (17) of section 2 to mean "producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating, or adapting any goods : ............." It, however, does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed. Rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ("the Rules") prescribes the manufactures and manufacturing processes which shall not be included in "manufacture" for the purpose of clause (17) of section 2 of the Act. The process specified therein which is relevant for the present purpose is the one specified in clause (xviii) of rule 3 which is in the following terms : "(xviii) subjecting the goods specified in any entry in Schedule B to any process or doing anything to them, which does not take them out of the description thereof in that entry." 5. On a conjoint reading of section 7, definitions of "resale" and "manufacture" in clauses (26) and (17) of section 2 and clause (xviii) of rule 3, and Schedule B and entry 3 thereof, it is clear that no tax will be payable on the sales of purchased cotton yarn, if it is sold without doing anything to it which takes it out of the description of "cotton yarn" in entry 3 of Schedule B. The question that arises for consideration, therefore is whether the process adopted by the assessee to the cotton yarn purchased by it to convert into "cotton sewing thread" is a process which takes it out of the description of "cotton yarn" in entry 3. In other words, whether "sewing cotton thread" does not meet the description of "cotton yarn" and is regarded as a commercial commodity different and distinct from "cotton yarn". The answer to this question has been provided by the Legislature itself which has classified "cotton thread" as an item, different and distinct, from cotton yarn by specifying the same in entry 23 of Part I of Schedule C. In Schedule C, goods (other than declared goods) have been specified. Thus, the Legislature while classifying "cotton yarn" as declared goods has made it clear that it does not include "cotton thread" by classifying "cotton thread" as goods other than declared goods and specifying the same as a separate item in entry 23 of Schedule C. In view of the above, it is difficult to accept the contention of the assessee that "cotton sewing thread" is "cotton yarn", for the purpose of section 7 of the Act. 6. Moreover, in common parlance and commercial or trade parlance also, "cotton yarn" and "cotton sewing thread" are regarded as two different and distinct commodities. In the instant case, the yarn purchased by the assessee was converted into "sewing thread" by applying certain processes and sold as "sewing thread" under the label "Mongoose brand mercerised sewing thread". In the sale invoice, the goods sold by the assessee were described as "cotton sewing thread No. 60/200 metres coloured mongoose" and the rate was Rs. 87 per gross, whereas the cotton yarn purchased by it was described as "2/40 Sudan combed G Merc. 'R' C.S.T. yarn" and the rate was Rs. 342 per kilogram. In the sale invoice, the goods sold by the assessee were described as "cotton sewing thread No. 60/200 metres coloured mongoose" and the rate was Rs. 87 per gross, whereas the cotton yarn purchased by it was described as "2/40 Sudan combed G Merc. 'R' C.S.T. yarn" and the rate was Rs. 342 per kilogram. The question that has to be decided therefore is whether cotton yarn and cotton sewing thread are one and the same commodity in common parlance or trade or commercial parlance or they are two different commodities. 7. "Yarn" has been defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as "any fibre, spun into strands for weaving, knitting or making thread". It is obvious from the above definition that yarn is a fibre which is used, inter alia, for making thread. "Thread" is thus one of the products of "yarn" and not yarn itself. The uses to which yarn and thread can be put are totally different. Yarn cannot be used for the purpose of sewing nor can sewing thread be used as yarn for the purpose of weaving or knitting. Sewing thread is used particularly for the purposes of sewing or stitching or securing together two objects. It is thus clear that "sewing thread" and "yarn" are distinct and different items having separate uses. Anybody who wants sewing thread would never purchase yarn. In fact, cotton yarn and sewing thread are regarded as two different and distinct commercial commodities both by the persons who deal therein and those who use the same. It is, therefore, difficult to hold "cotton sewing thread" to be "cotton yarn". In fact, as stated above, sewing thread is one of the products of yarn and not "yarn". 8. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mohta Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1976] 38 STC 11 where it was held that "cotton yarn and cotton sewing thread are two distinct and well-known commodities. They are separate things in ordinary parlance. It cannot be said that they are the same thing. Even their user is distinct and separate. Thus in the commercial world when one asks for cotton yarn one would not be given cotton sewing thread or vice versa. It is, therefore, evident that cotton yarn and cotton sewing thread are two distinct and separate items in ordinary parlance. It cannot be said that they are the same thing. Even their user is distinct and separate. Thus in the commercial world when one asks for cotton yarn one would not be given cotton sewing thread or vice versa. It is, therefore, evident that cotton yarn and cotton sewing thread are two distinct and separate items in ordinary parlance. On the question whether cotton sewing thread retained its characteristic of its being cotton yarn the question has to be answered in the negative. The cotton sewing thread, although it comes out of the basic raw material, viz., cotton yarn, but is a distinct product and of a particular thickness and strength. Although the cotton sewing thread is made out of cotton yarn, it cannot be re-converted into cotton yarn if not used as a cotton sewing thread. Further although cotton yarn is twisted to produce cotton sewing thread but there is a distinct process to do so and the end-result is entirely a distinct and separate product. It has no bearing or relationship to cotton yarn as is known in common parlance". To the same effect is the decision of the Kerala High Court in Pappu & Sons v. State of Kerala [1981] 48 STC 460 where it is held that sewing thread does not fall within the scope of the entry "cotton yarn". 9. We have also perused the decisions of the Orissa High Court in Srinivasa Distributing Agencies v. State of Orissa [1981] 48 STC 453 and Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 where a contrary view has been taken. We have carefully considered the said decisions. However, with utmost respect, for the reasons set out above, we find it difficult to agree with the views of the Orissa and the Madras High Courts in the above decisions. In our opinion, there is hardly any scope for controversy about the fact that in common parlance and trade parlance "yarn" and "sewing thread" are regarded as two distinct and different commodities. 10. In view of the above, all the three questions referred to us are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.