Case: Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Etc Vs. State Of Kerala &amp; Ors

2. The appellant is a company registered underthe Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Ahamedabad in Gujarat. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of steel tubes and pipes both black and galvanised.3. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the appellant contended that the galvanised iron pipes manufactured by it are "declared goods" and are not liable to additional sales tax as well as surcharge. The appellants contention was not accepted by the assessing authority, who taxed the turnover of galvanised iron pipes at four per cent and also assessed an additional tax and surcharge treating the galvanised iron pipes as goods falling under Entry 46 of the First Schedule to the Kerala Sales Tax Act. Demands were raised accordingly.4. It appears that the matter was brought to the High Court by writ petition, and the High Court held on the basis of its decision in Apollo Tubes Limited v. State of Kerala (1986) 61 STC. 275  that the category of goods called galvanised iron pipes had acquired a different commercial identity as a result of the process of galvanisation and could not be identified with steel tubes mentioned in S.14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Cases on the other side of the line are Associated Mechanical Industries v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (1986) 61 STC 225  and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Om Engineering Works, 1986 U.P., T.C.55. The High Court preferred to follow its own decision and on 24th March, 1986 held against the appellant. A certificate having been granted by the High Court these appeals are now before us.

Reasoning:
5. The purpose of galvanising a pipe is merely to make it weather-proof. It remains a steel tube. By being put through the process of galvanising it is made rust-proof. Neither its structure nor function is altered. As a commercial item it is not different from a steel tube. That galvanisation is done on steel tubes or pipes as a protective measure only was the basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Associated Mechanical Industries (supra). Merely because the steel tube has been galvanised does not mean that it ceased to be a steel tube. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Shah Veljibai Motichand, Lunawada (1969) 23 STC 288  held that merely because iron is given the shape of a sheet and is subject to corrugation does not take it out of the description of "iron and steel". So also in Sales Tax Commissioner and Others v. Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicate (1980) 45 STC 99  the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that galvanisation and corrugation do not change the essential character of iron sheets, and they remain iron sheets.6. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirappalli v. P.C. Mohammed Ibrahim Marakayar Sons (1980) 46 STC, 22 . The limited purpose of galvanisation does not, it seems to us bring a new commodity into existence. The respondents rely on Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue v. G.S. Pai & Co. (1980) 1 SCR. 938  but in that case this Court held that Bullion as understood popularly does not include ornaments or other articles of gold. It was pointed out that Bullion was commonly treated as a commodity distinct and separate from ornaments and articles of gold. Gold ornaments and ankles were manufactured on finished products of gold. A number of other cases were cited on behalf of the respondents, but we do not find any of them to be of assistance to the respondents.7. We are of the view that galvanised pipes are steel tubes within the meaning of S.14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales tax Act. The view taken by the High Court is erroneous.8. We may note that shortly after judgment was reserved in the present appeals, an identical point arose before a Bench of this Court on 28 April, 1988 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3549 of 1988 - Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mitra Industries (1988) 69 STC Note No.55 at P. 16, and the learned judges took the same view which finds favour with us here.