Case: M/S Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd, &amp;Anr Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

the head "leather" details the various processes applied in the treatment of hides and skins at all stages, pre-tanning, tanning and post-tanning. Dyeing or colouring is a process which follows tanning but precedes "finishing : (i.e. dressing) in order to make it suitable for the purpose which it is required in commercial usage. Part V of the "Wealth of India", a publication of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (1966), dealing with leather under "Industrial Products" explains that "hides and skins are liable to putrefaction and loss unless suitably treated and converted into leather". Structurally, hides and skins have a thick middle layer called corium, which is converted to leather by tanning. The operations involved in leather manufacture however fall into three groups. Pre-tanning operations includes soaking, liming, deliming, bating and pickling, and post-tanning operations are splitting and shaving, neutralising, bleaching, dyeling, fat-liquoring and stuffing, setting out, samming, drying, staking and finishing. These operations bring about chemical changes in the leather substance and influence the physical characteristics of the leather, and different varieties of commercial leather are obtained by suitably adjusting the manufacturing operations. These processes need not be gone into in detail but the passages relied upon clearly show that hides and skins are termed "leather" even as soon as the process of tanning is over and the danger of their putrefaction is put an end to. The entry in the CST Act, however, includes within its scope hides and skins until they are `dressed. This, as we have seen, represents the stage when they undergo the process of finishing and assume a form in which they can be readily utilised for manufacture of various commercial articles. In this view, it is hardly material that coloured leather may be a form of leather or may even be said to represent a different commercial commodity. The statutory entry is comprehensive enough to include the products emerging from hides and skins until the process of dressing or finishing is done." 18. Mr. Pradeep Misra submitted that tanned leather would be covered by the definition of the "agricultural produce" as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. He submitted that it was merely a processed form of "hides and skins". He submitted that cases relied upon by the appellants were of no help as all of them were under taxing statutes and were merely interpreting terms in the context of the definitions given in those statutes. 19. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. In our view it is clear that the interpretation has to be on the basis of the expression `Agricultural produce as set out in Section 2(a) of the said Act. In so determining decisions based on different statutes such as Sales Tax Laws can be of no assistance. All the cases relied upon by Mr. Sudhir Chandra are cases under the taxing statutes where the interpretation has been given on the basis of the terms as defined in those statutes. 20. A perusal of Section 2(a) of the said makes it clear that an agricultural produce would be a product which is specified in the Schedule or one which is admixture of two or more items and would also include any such item in a processed form. In our view it makes no difference, for the purposes of the said Act, that the concerned item is a different commodity from the one which is included in the Schedule. It is possible that by virtue of an admixture of two or more items or by virtue of processing a different commodity or item may come into existence. Even though a different commodity may come into existence, it would still be an `Agricultural produce. This is best illustrated by Sugarcane which is in Schedule A, Item VIII at Serial No. 14. From Sugarcane, `rab and `gur are manufactured. They are already different commodities or items. Yet they are all included. The specific inclusion of items like "gur", rab, shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery" is to make it clear that merely because it becomes a different item or commodity it is not excluded. 21. We see no reason to go into the difference between `manufacturing and `processing. In the strict sense of the terms there may be a difference. However, we are not required to go into these differences as, in our view, it is very clear, from what has been set out by the Appellants themselves in their affidavit that for hides and skins to be converted into leather or tanned leather all that is required is a process. It is a process of cleaning, curing and adding preservatives. That it is a process has been held by this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders and others, etc. (supra). We are also of the view that the finished product i.e. `tanned leather even though it may have changed in physical appearance or chemical combination and even though it may commercially be a different item still remains a `hides and skins. 22. For this reason we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. 23. Even otherwise our above view is supported by the Hindi version in the definition. As has been set out in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), it is well known in U.P. all legislations are in Hindi. Of course an English version simultaneously published. Undoubtedly, if there is conflict between the two then the English version would prevail. However, if there is no conflict then one can always have assistance of the Hindi version in order to find out whether the word used in English includes a particular item or not. In the Hindi version the word used in `Chamra. There can be no dispute that the term `Chamra would include `leather in all its forms. 24. In this view of the after the appeal stands dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. In our view it is clear that the interpretation has to be on the basis of the expression `Agricultural produce as set out in Section 2(a) of the said Act. In so determining decisions based on different statutes such as Sales Tax Laws can be of no assistance. All the cases relied upon by Mr. Sudhir Chandra are cases under the taxing statutes where the interpretation has been given on the basis of the terms as defined in those statutes.A perusal of Section 2(a) of the said makes it clear that an agricultural produce would be a product which is specified in the Schedule or one which is admixture of two or more items and would also include any such item in a processed form. In our view it makes no difference, for the purposes of the said Act, that the concerned item is a different commodity from the one which is included in the Schedule. It is possible that by virtue of an admixture of two or more items or by virtue of processing a different commodity or item may come into existence. Even though a different commodity may come into existence, it would still be an `Agricultural produce. This is best illustrated by Sugarcane which is in Schedule A, Item VIII at Serial No. 14. From Sugarcane, `rab and `gur are manufactured. They are already different commodities or items. Yet they are all included. The specific inclusion of items like "gur", rab, shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery" is to make it clear that merely because it becomes a different item or commodity it is not excluded.We see no reason to go into the difference between `manufacturing and `processing. In the strict sense of the terms there may be a difference. However, we are not required to go into these differences as, in our view, it is very clear, from what has been set out by the Appellants themselves in their affidavit that for hides and skins to be converted into leather or tanned leather all that is required is a process. It is a process of cleaning, curing and adding preservatives. That it is a process has been held by this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders and others, etc. (supra). We are also of the view that the finished product i.e. `tanned leather even though it may have changed in physical appearance or chemical combination and even though it may commercially be a different item still remains a `hides and skins.For this reason we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.Even otherwise our above view is supported by the Hindi version in the definition. As has been set out in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), it is well known in U.P. all legislations are in Hindi. Of course an English version simultaneously published. Undoubtedly, if there is conflict between the two then the English version would prevail. However, if there is no conflict then one can always have assistance of the Hindi version in order to find out whether the word used in English includes a particular item or not. In the Hindi version the word used in `Chamra. There can be no dispute that the term `Chamra would include `leather in all its forms.