Kerala High Court
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs Shiphy International on 10 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1987]66STC49(KER)
Author: K.S. Paripoornan
Bench: K.S. Paripoornan
JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.
1. This tax revision case at the instance of the Revenue concerns the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee-respondent had purchased fresh frog legs and after removing the skin, washing and removing dirt, etc. and freezing it for the purpose of avoiding decomposition and decay, the frog legs were exported. The assessee claimed that on the facts of the case they were entitled to the benefits under Section 6(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act as amended and that the purchases of the frog legs were exempted from levy of tax. The contention of the Revenue was that what were purchased were fresh frog legs, which were not exported as such and hence Section 5(3) had no application. The order of assessment denying the benefits of Section 5(3) was set aside in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the frog legs purchased did not lose their character as frog legs by virtue of the operations carried on before export. The Appellate Tribunal has affirmed this decision of the Deputy Commissioner and the State is in revision before us.
2. According to us the matter is concluded by the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 1809. Therein the Supreme Court was concerned with the identical provisions, the case concerned there being frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters. The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of Section 5(3) the goods purchased by the assessee and the goods exported by him must be the same. The court held that frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters are commercially regarded as the same commodity as raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters. When raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters are subjected to the process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing, they do not cease to be shrimps, prawns and lobsters and become another distinct commodity. They still continued to be known as shrimps, prawns and lobsters in common parlance. There was no essential difference between these items in the raw state and in the processed or frozen state and the dealer and the consumer regard both as shrimps, prawns and lobsters. The only difference is that processed shrimps, prawns and lobsters are ready for the table while the raw items are not. But both are in commercial parlance, shrimps, prawns and lobsters. The ratio of this decision must squarely apply to the facts of this case also. Fresh frog legs or processed frog legs are one and the same in common commercial parlance. Freezing operations are only carried on for the purpose of preventing decomposition and decay and to make them ready for the table. The character and identity of the frog legs are not in any manner changed by the operations of removing the skin, washing and removing the dirt and freezing. The common man as well as the trader understand both only as frog legs without any distinction between them. As stated by the Supreme Court the only difference is that the fresh frog legs are not ready for the table while processed ones are. There can be no doubt that there is commercial identity between fresh frog legs and the processed ones and that the latter retained the same character and identity as the fresh ones. It is, therefore, clear that the goods exported are the same as those purchased and hence the assessee is entitled to the benefits of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. We dismiss the tax revision case in limine.