Special Leave Petition Civil No 2867 of 1988 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 171987 of the Kerala High Court in TRC No 33 of 1985
VJ Francis for the Petitioner
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
These are petitions for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the decision of the High Court of Kerala
The revenue is the petitioner before the High Court
The respondent is the assessee
The respondent is a PWD contractor
He had undertaken certain contract works on behalf of the Public Works Department
He had executed agreements with the PWD for repair of roads
The question involved is whether the materials used by the assessee for the said purpose can be taxed under purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 hereinafter called the Act 
The relevant provisions of Section 5A1 a b c 2 and 3 of the Act are as follows 5A Levy of purchase tax 1 Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 5 and either 491 a consumes such goods in the manufacture of other foods for sale or otherwise or b disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State or c despatches them to any place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of interstate trade or commerce shall whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for that year at the rates mentioned in section 5
2 Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection 1 a dealer other than a casual trader or agent of a non resident dealer purchasing goods the sale of which is liable to tax under section
5 shall not be liable to pay tax under section 1 if his total turnover for a year is less than twenty thousand rupees Provided that where the total turnover of such dealer for the year in respect of the goods mentioned in clause i of sub section 1 of section 5 is not less than two thousand five hundred rupees he shall be liable to pay tax on the taxable turnover in respect of these goods
3 Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section a dealer referred to in subsection I who purchases goods the sale of which is liable to tax under clause ii of sub section I of Section 5 and whose total turnover for a year is not less than twenty thousand rupees but not more than twenty five thousand rupees may at his option instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of sub section I pay tax at the rate mentioned in clause i of sub section I of section 7 in accordance with the provisions of that section
 The assessee was assessed on the purchase turnover of sand bricks etc which were used for the execution of his work
The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
In the second appeal preferred by the assessee the Tribunal found that the assessee was a PWD Contractor
He had obtained an amount of 492 Rs101372 as per bills from the Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings
According to the assessing officer an amount of Rs2768413 was the purchase value of articles used by the assessee for the execution of these contracts and so the assessing officer had assessed this turnover to tax under Section 5A of the Act
The Tribunal found that it was necessary under the said Section 5A of the Act to have consumption of the commodity in the manufacture of another commodity the goods purchased should be consumed the consumption should be in the process of manufacture and the result must be the manufacture of other goods
Therefore according to the Tribunal when a PWD Contractor was using some articles for constructing a Sea Wall or repairing a public road there was consumption of a commodity for the manufacture of another commodity
This conclusion logically follows from the observations and ratio of this Court in Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax Law Board of Revenue Taxes Ernakulam vs Pio Food Packers   where Pathak J as the learned Chief Justice then was held that when pineapple fruit is processed into pineapple slices for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans there is no consumption of the original pineapple fruit for the purpose of manufacture within the meaning of section 5A1a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963
He further observed at pages 1276 and 1277 of the report as follows Although a degree of processing is involved in preparing pineapple slices from the original fruit the commodity continues to possess its original identity notwithstanding the removal of inedible portions the slicing and thereafter canning it on adding sugar to preserve it
It is contended for the Revenue that pineapple slices have a higher price in the market than the original fruit and that implies that the slices constitute a different commercial commodity
The higher price it seems to us is occasioned only because of the labour put into making the fruit more readily consumable and because of the can employed to contain it
It is not as if the higher price is claimed because it is a different commercial commodity
It is said that pineapple slices appeal to a different sector of the trade and that when a customer asks for a can of pineapple slices he has in mind something very different from fresh pineapple fruit
Here again the distinction in the mind of the consumer arises not from any difference in the essential identity of the two but is derived from the mere form in which the fruit is desired
493 Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that even if no manufacturing process is involved the case still falls within section 5A1a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the statutory provision speaks not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale but also goods consumed otherwise
There is a fallacy in the submission
The clause truly read speaks of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other than sale
 The Tribunal accepted the assessee s contentions and allowed the appeal
The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and rejected the revision
Hence this petition for leave to appeal
We are unable to see any ground for interference
The position is clear from the decision of this Court in Pio Food Packers supra
It was contended before us that if no manufacturing process was involved the case would fall within the scope of Section 5 A1a of the Act because the statutory provisions spoke not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale but also goods consumed other wise 
Reliance for that was placed on the decision of this Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit vs Commissioner of Sales Tax Madhya Pradesh  It is however not possible to accept this contention
In the decision of Pio Food Packers supra it was observed that the clause truly read spoke of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other than sale
In the instant case the user must be in the other commodity and the expression consumed otherwise must be so construed
This contention was specifically considered by this Court in SLP Civil Nos
8747 49 of 1987 Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Law Board of Revenue Taxes Ernakulam judgment delivered on 14th March 1988
In the aforesaid view of the matter there is no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court
The Special Leave Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed
NVK Petitions dismissed


Summary:
 The petitioner was apprehended on April 2 1987 on information provided by his associate that he was the main person directing illegal remittances of money to foreign countries
He was formally arrested on April 3 1987 and remanded to judicial custody till April 131987
His associate was in the meantime enlarged on bail and being apprehensive that the petitioner too may be released on April 13 1987 when his application was to come up an order of detention made under Section 31 of the COFEPOSA Act was served on him on that day
The application for bail filed by him was actually allowed the same day ie April 131987
Petitioner s representation against the detention was rejected and a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court
In the Special Leave Petition arising out of the High Court s Order and the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution it was contended that the impugned order amounts to double detention as the petitioner was already in jail when the detention order was made and that it was essential for the detaining authority to have been aware of the fact that the petitioner was already in jail and was likely to be released on bail and further he had to be satisfied that compelling necessity existed for the detention none of which conditions were satisfied
Dismissing the petitions  HELD 1
A perusal of the grounds of detention clearly indicates that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody and was apprehensive that he would be released on bail when an application for bail moved on his bahalf was going to be heard on April 13 1987
The order passed on the bail application of the 495 petitioner s associate was also referred to therein
Thereafter the detaining authority had mentioned his satisfaction about the necessity of the detention
497F H 2
The object of detention has to be prevention of a detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange resources and not to frustrate his trial in a criminal case nor as a punitive measure
498B In the instant case the role of the petitioner has been detailed in the grounds showing how he got illegally siphoned the foreign exchange to the tune of about 2 crores of rupees out of the country
The grounds also refer to the statements made by his associates which indicate that offences in respect of which the detenu was accused of were so interlinked and continuous in character and were of such nature that they fully justified the detention order
In the circumstances the satisfaction of the detaining authority specifically recorded cannot be doubted
498CDG Suraj Pal Sahu vs State of Maharashtra   referred to
Merely because the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner was not opposed on behalf of the respondents before the Magistrate it cannot be said that his detention was not called for
Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case no such inference is permissible to be drawn in favour of the petitioner
498H 499B Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate Etah  distinguished