State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 879, 1977 SCR (1)1002, AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 879, 1977 (1) SCC 643, 1977 TAX. L. R. 1861, 1977 (1) SCR 1002, 39 STC 340, 1977 9 STA 22, 1977 SCC (TAX) 211 Author: M. Hameedullah Beg Bench: M. Hameedullah Beg, A.N. Ray, P.N. Shingal PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/10/1976 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY, A.N. (CJ) SHINGAL, P.N. CITATION: 1977 AIR 879 1977 SCR (1)1002 1977 SCC (1) 643 CITATOR INFO : E 1980 SC 86 (5) D 1986 SC 515 (106) D 1986 SC1323 (71) RF 1988 SC 740 (19) ACT: Sales Tax--Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, s. 2(g), Expln. II--Goods within State at the time of contract of sale, mixed up outside State and the mixture sold---"Sale' if taxable. Interpretation of Statutes--Provision in Act substituted by another--Amending provision void--Effect. Words and Phrases--`Substituted; meaning of. State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  1 HEADNOTE: Section 2(g) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 defines 'sale' and Explanation II to the sub-section provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are actually in the State at the time when the contract of sale, as defined in that Act in respect thereof is made, shall, wherever the contract of sale is made, be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have taken place in the State. The Amending Act of 1949 substituted for this Explanation another Explanation but as the amend- ment did not receive the assent of the Governor General under S. 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, it was void. The assessee owned manganese ore mines in the State and was entering into contracts at places outside the State for the despatch abroad of manganese ore through different ports. The contracts contained specifications of strengths of manganese ore to be supplied with permissible percentages of other ingredients an admixtures. The assessee arranged for the transport of various grades of menganese ore in railway wagons from one or more of the mines, and the order in which trucks were loaded and unloaded was so arranged that the required average consistency or strength of manganese ore specified in the contracts was obtained in the course of such unloading. The assessee described the par- ticular type of conglomerate as 'Oriental mixture.' The assessee contended (1) that the original Explanation II was validly repealed by the Amending Act and since no sub- stitution of the new provision had taken place, only the repeal survived, and that, therefore neither the old una- mended provision nor its replacement were in operation, with the result that the Sales after the date of amendment were. not subject to sales tax, and (2) even assuming that the unamended provision was in force, 'Oriental Mixture', as a taxable commodity came into existence only after the ores got mixed up in the process of unloading and not before so that, its sale could not be taxed as 'goods which are actu- ally in the State', at the time when contracts: were entered into. The High Court on a reference held the first contention against the assessee and the second in favour of the asses- see. Both sides appealed to this Court. Dismissing the appeals of the assessee and allowing the appeals of the State. HELD: (1) As the period involved is preconstitution period, Art. 286 of Constitution, which is not retrospective in operation would not help the assessee even though the as- sessment was after the Constitution came into force. [1007 F] (2) There was no repeal of the existing Explanation when 'substitution' by means of the amending Act failed to be effective and so the sale could be taxed under it. [1012 A- State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  2 B] (a) The question is one of gathering the intent from the use of words in the enacting provisions seen in the light of the procedure gone through, and from the nature of the action of the authority which functions, [1010 B] 1003 (b) The word 'substitution' does not necessarily or 'always connote two severable steps, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment, even if it implies two steps. The natural meaning of the word 'substitution' is to indicate that the process cannot be so split up. If the process described as substitution fails, it is totally ineffective so as to leave in tact what was sought to be displaced. It could not be inferred that; what was intended was that in case the substitution failed or proved ineffec- tive, some repeal, not mentioned at all, was brought about and remained effective so as to create what may be described as a vacuum in the statutory law on the subject-matter. The term 'substitution' when it occurs without anything else in the language used or in the context of it or in the sur- rounding facts and circumstances, means, ordinarily, that unless the substituted provision is there to take its place, in law and in effect, the preexisting provision continues. [1009 H, 1010 A-G] (c) In the present case, the whole legislative process termed substitution was abortive. because, it did not take effect for want of the assent of the GovernorGeneral. Considering the actual procedure, even if the Governor had assented the substitution, yet the amendment would have been effective as a piece of valid legislation only when the assent of the Governor-General had also been accorded to it. It could not be said that what the Legislature intended or what the Government had assented to consisted of a separate repeal and a fresh enactment. The two results were to follow from one and the same effective legislative process. [1010 CD] (d) It is easier to impute an intention to an executive rule-making authority to repeal altogether, in any event, what is sought to be displaced by another rule, because the repeal as we11 as replacement are capable of being achieved and inferred from a bare issue of fresh instructions on the same subject. In the case of a legislative provision sought to be amended by a fresh enactment, the procedure for enact- ment is far more elaborate and formal. A repeal and a replacement of a legislative provision by a fresh enactment can only take place after such elaborate procedure has been followed in toto. Even the analogy of a merger of an order into another which was meant to be its substitute could only where there is a valid substitute. [1011 C-F, 1012 A-B] Koteswar Vittal Kamath v.K. Rangappa Balica & Co. AIR 1969 SC & 509 [1969] (3) SCR 40. @ 47 Firm .A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State Madras [1963] Suppl. 2, SCR 435 and B.N. Tewari v. Union of India & Ors. [1965] 2 SCR. 421 State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  3 explained. Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (1952) 3 STC 343 @ 367 approved. 3. The present case is not one of mixing various ingre- dients at a 'mixing works', and the product which comes into existence being sold as a separate commercial commodity in the market. The goods got mixed up in the process of un- loading without employing any mechanical or chemical process of manufacture. The mere fact that the specifications in the conrtacts were satisfied when they got so mixed up is not a good enough ground for holding that a new product has been manufactured. The mere giving of the new name 'Orien- tal mixture by the assessee to. what is really the same product is not the manufacture of a new product. [1013 A-D, G-H, 1014 A-B] The Stale of Madras v. Bell Mark Tobacco Co. (1967) 19 STC 129, The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory (1966) 17 STC 316 and Anwarkhan Mchboob Co. v. The State of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) & Ors. (1960) 11 STC 698 and Shaw Bros & Co. v. The State of West Bengal (1963) 14 STC 878 referred to. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 37 STC 522 explained. Nilciri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. The State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 approved. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 446--449 of 1976. Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and Orders dated. 14-1338SCI/76 7-4-1969 and 25-1-1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) In S.T.R. Nos. 17 to 20 of 1964 and CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 450453 OF 1976. Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 28-1-1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in G.S.T. Reference Nos. 17-20/64. V. p. Raman, Addl. Sol. General for India, S.B. Wad and M. N Shroff for Appellants in CAs. 450 to 453/76. G.L. Sanghi, A. S. Bobde, M.L. Vaidya, V.A. Bobde, A. G. Meneses, J.B. Dadachanji, K.J. John, O.C. Mathur and Ravind- er Narain for the Respondents in CAs. 446-449/76 and Appel- lants in (2. As. 450-453/76 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J.--The eight appeals before us by special leave arise out of four Sale "Tax References, under Section 23(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Six common ques- tions arose here relating to assessments for different periods on identically similar facts stated below. Five of these were decided by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As it answered the main question determining liabili- ty to pay the sales tax under the Act against the State, there are four appeals against it by the State. The sixth question, which was one of law only, was referred by State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  4 the Division Bench to a Full Bench, and, this was determined in favour of the State. There are, therefore, four appeals by the assessee against the Full Bench decision. M/s. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., the assessee, has its Head Office in London. It carries on business on an extensive scale. It owns 22 manganese ore mines in Madhya Pradesh from where manganese ore, after being excavated, is sent mostly abroad through different ports. The Company is a registered dealer under the Act. It used to enter into contracts at places outside Madhya Pradesh for the despatch of what came to be known, in the special parlance of this company's business, as "Oriental Mixture" But the contracts contain specifications only of strengths of manganese ore to be supplied with permissible percentages of other ingredients as admixtures. The term "Oriental Mixture" was evidently employed by the Company itself to describe a particular type of conglomerate which the unloading at one place of Various types of manganese ore produced. The required average consistency or strength of manganese ore specified in the contracts, which did not contain a reference to any "Oriental Mixture", was said to be obtained in the course of this mechanical process of transportation when various grades of manganese ore were heaped together. These grades of manganese ore were trans- ported, in railway wagons, from one or more mines, and, it appears that the order in which trucks were.loaded in goods trains and unloaded was also so,arranged that the mixture came into existence, as described above, in the mere process of unloading at the port. But, this procedure did not seem to involve a process of "Manufacture", as that term is ordinarily understood, to which the assessee could be said to have subjected its manganese ore. The case of the assessee company was that the "Oriental Mixture" as a taxable commodity came into existence only after the ores got mixed up in the process of unloading and not before so that it could not be taxed as "goods in exist- ence" in Madhya Pradesh at the time when ,contracts relating to these goods were made. This is the crucial and simple question, largely one of fact, which resulted in considera- ble :argument before the High Court and before us also. Other questions ,appear to be subsidiary. Nevertheless; we have to consider them 'before coming to the crucial question which is: Is the process described above one of "manufacture" so that a new kind of goods, known as "Oriental Mixture", came into existence at the port where manganese ore trucks were unloaded? As the High Court pointed out, the periods involved in the four references before it were not governed by the provisions of the Constitution. They related to the follow- ing period: 1. Reference No. 17 of 1964 for the period 1st January, 1947 30th September, 1947. 2. Reference No. 18 of 1964 for the period 1st October, 1947 to 31st December, 1948. 3. Reference No. 19 of 1964 for the period 1st January, 1949 to 31st December, 1949. 4. Reference No. 20 of 1964 for the period 1st January, 1950 to 25th January, 1950. We, therefore, agree with the High Court's view that Article 286 of the Constitution, which is not retrospective in operation, could not help the assessee merely because it was there at the time of assessment. State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  5 The next question to be considered, which was referred to the Full Bench, flows from Explanation (II) to Section 2(g) of the Act which was amended by the C.P. & Berar Sale Tax (Amendment) Act No. XVI of 1949, came into force on 11th April, 1949. Hence, the law, as found after the amending Act, could apply, .if valid, only to the last two refer- ences. But, the question which arose, on the assumption that the amendment was ineffective, was whether the unamended law could be applied at all after the purported amendment. Section 2(g) of the Act, with its two explanations, before it was amended, may be reproduced here in toto. It reads as follows: "2(g) 'sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable considera- tion, including a transfer of property in goods made in course of the execution of a contract, but does not,include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge: Explanation (I): A transfer of goods on hire- purchase or other installment system of pay- ment' shall, notwithstanding that the seller retains a title to any goods as security for payment of the price, be deemed to be a sale; Explanation (11): Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are actually in the Central Provinces and Berar at the time when the contract of sale as define in that Act in respect thereof is made, shall wherever the. said contract of sale is made, be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have taken place in the Central Provinces and Berar". Section 2 of the Amending Act of 1949 provid- ed: 2. In section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), (a) in clause (g) for Explanation (I1) the following shall be substituted :-- Explanation (I1) :--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930, the sale or purchase of any goods shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act, to have taken place in this province, wherever the contract of sale or purchase might have been made--- "(a) if the goods were actually in this province at the time when the contract of sale or purchase in respect thereof was made, or (b) in case the contract was for the sale or purchase of future goods by descrip- State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  6 tion, then, if the goods are actually produced or found in this Province at any time after the contract of sale or purchase in respect thereof was made". The submission made on behalf of the assessee, which was accepted by the High Court was that, as the amendment did not receive the assent of the Governor General under Section 107 of the Govt. of India Act, it was void. It was, howev- er, also urged, on behalf of the assessee, that a repeal of the previously existing section did not require the assent of the Governor General at all. The argument was that the original provision was validly repealed, but, as no substi- tution of the new provision could take place, because the assent of the Governor General was not obtained, only the repeal survived. The result of accepting such a submission would be that the substitution will have to be split up into two distinct enactments; firstly, a repeal of the original section 2(g) of the Act; and, secondly, the substitution of the new provision for the repealed one. The assessee's argument was that two processes, one of repeal and another of substitution, are necessarily implied in such an amend- ment as the one before us. It was urged that both had received the assent of the Governor, but, since the substi- tuted provision alone required the assent of the Governor General, which was not obtained, a repeal, which was assent- ed to by the Governor, stood on its own separate footing. Thus, the result was said to be a repeal simpliciter without the enactment of the fresh provision meant to replace it. It was submitted that the High Court, after finding the substituted provisions of section 2(g) of the Act to be invalid, had erred in holding that the repeal was also ineffective. It was contended that such a view resulted in attributing to the legislature an intention contrary to that which it had unmistakably expressed by repealing the una- mended provision. It was urged that the repeal, which was clearly intended, must be held to be valid. According to this submission, neither the old unamended provision nor the replacement of it were in operation during the last two. assessment periods. Of course, this argument assumes that the repeal and the new' enactment are separate. In Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh & Ant. C) which was cited before us, it was held, on the question argued before us (at p. 366-367): " ...... we have already shown that the second Explanation in clause (g) of Sec- tion 2, which makes an agreement of sale taxable even though the sale may have taken place outside. the province, is not ultra vires the Provision Legislature. We must make it clear that our answer to this question is in the affirmative, free from considerations arising under Article 286. We have shown that the necessary power to make the unamended Explanation did exist in the State Legisla- ture; but we have also made it clear that by virtue' of Article 286 the Explanation can no longer be enforced because under the present Constitution the sales tax can only be col- lected at the market and where the goods are delivered for consumption. We may also state that the amended Explanation II is not validly enacted because it makes drastic changes in the rules as found in the Sale of Goods Act without obtaining the' assent of the Governor-General. The effect of the amended Explanation going out would be to rehabilitate the old Explanation as it existed because the amendment being unconstitutional will fail to work any change in the law (See the opinion given by one of us, Hidayatullah, J., in Laxmibai v. The State (I.L.R. 1951) Nag. 563, 608, 610 (F.B.)". State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  7 No question relating to the enforcement of the Sales-tax by any collection to be made after the Constitution came into force was raised the cases before us. Only questions relating to taxability arise here As we have already indicated, Article 286 does not stand in the way of taxabil- ity. This was held to be the correct position in the case of Shriram Gulabdas (Supra). It was also clearly held there that the 'result of the invalidity of the amended explana- tion was to leave the law unaltered as it stood before the amendment. We approve of this pronouncement made long ago on this very question. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the case of Shriram Gulabdas (supra) contained what was merely an obser- vation with regard the "rehabilitation" of the preexisting law as that question was no directly under consideration there. It was also submitted that this observation must be deemed to have been over-ruled by subsequent pronouncements of this Court. (1) (1952) 3 S.T.C. 343. 367. The passage cited above by us occurs in answering the fifth question considered there which was framed as follows: "(v) Whether Explanation II to clause (g) of Section 2, which makes an agreement of sale taxable even though the sale may have taken placed outside the Province, ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature ?" Other questions framed indicate that it was not only the validity of the provision, both before and after its amend- ment, which was directly considered and pronounced upon, but the application of the concept of sale under the unamended law and its effects were also under consideration. There- fore, we think that the decision was directly on a question which necessarily arose for determination before the Court on that occasion. We think that the view that the unamended law was in operation was not a mere obiter dictum. It was necessary to decide that question before other questions could be determined. We give out own reasons below for accepting the correctness of the view taken then. The following passage was also cited from Koteswar Vittal Kamath V.K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. (at p. 509): "Learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that the Prohibition Order of 1119 cannot, in any case, be held to have continued after 8th March, 1950, if the prin- ciple laid down by this Court in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras, (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 435-(AIR 1963 SC 928) is applied. In that case, rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, was impugned. A new R. 16 was substi- tuted for the old Rule 16 by publication on September 7, 1955, and this new rule was to be effective from 1st April, 1955. The Court held that the' new Rule 16(2) was invalid because the provisions of that. rule contra- vened the provisions of Article 304(a) of the Constitution. Thereupon, it was urged before the Court that, if the impugned rule be held to be invalid, the old Rule 16 gets revived, so that the tax assessed on the basis of that rule will' be good. The Court rejected this submission by holding that : State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  8 'Once the old rule has been substituted by the new rule, it ceases to exist and it does not automatically get revived when the new rule is held to be invalid'. On that analogy, it was argued that, if we hold that the Prohibition Order of 1950 was invalid, the previous Prohibition Order of 1119 cannot be held to be revived. This argument ignores the distinction between supersession of a rule, and substitution of a rule. In the case of (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 435- (AIR 1963 SC 928) (supra), the new Rule 16 was substituted for the old Rule 16. The process of substitution consists of two steps. First, the old rule is made to cease to exist, and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. Even if the new rule be in- valid, the first step of the (1) A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 504. 509: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 40. 47. old rule ceasing to exist comes into effect and it was for this reason that the Court held that, on declaration of the new rule as in- valid, the old rule could not be held to be revived". In the above mentioned passage, this Court merely explained the argument which was ac- cepted in the case of firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras(1). After doing so, it distinguished the facts in Koteswar's case (supra), relating to an alleged substitution of one Prohibition Order by a subsequent order which was found to be invalid. It recorded its conclusion as follows (at p. 509): "In the case before us, there was no substitution of the Prohibition Order of 1950 for the Prohibition Order of 1119. The Prohi- bition Order of 1950 was promulgated independ- ently of the Prohibition Order of 1119, and because of the provisions of law it would have had the effect of making the Prohibition Order of 1119 inoperative if it had been a valid order. If the Prohibition Order of 1950 is found to be void ab initio, it could never make the Prohibition Order of 1119 inopera- tive". The argument before us is that since the word "substi- tuted" is used in the amending Act of 1949, it necessarily follows that the process embraces two steps. One of repeal and another of the new enactment. But, this argument is basically different from the argument which prevailed in Koteswar's case (supra) where a distinction was drawn be- tween a "substitution" and "supersession". It is true that, as the term substitution was not used there, the old rule was not held to have been repealed. Nevertheless, the real basis of that decision was that what was called supersession was void ab initio so that the law remained what it would have been if no such legislative process had taken place at all. It was held that the void and inoperative legislative process did not affect the validity of the pre-existing rule. And, this is precisely what is contended or by the State before us. In the case before us although the word "substitution" is used in the amending Act, yet the whole legislative process termed substitution was itself abortive. The whole of that process did not take effect as the assent of the Governor-General, required by Section 107 Govt. of India Act, was lacking. Such ineffectiveness was the very reason why, in the case of Sriram Gulabdas (supra), it was held that the previous law stood unaffected by the attempted legislation called substitution. Moreover, the case of Shriram Gulabdas (supra) is a direct authority on the very provisions now before us. State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  9 Other cases cited are on very different legislative provisions. We do not think that the word substitution necessarily or always connotes two severable steps, that is to say, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment even if it im- plies two steps. Indeed, the natural meaning of the word "substitution" is to indicate that the process cannot be split up into two pieces like this. If the process de- scribed as substitution fails, it is totally ineffective so as to leave intact what was sought (1) [1963] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 435. to be displaced. That seems to us to be the ordinary and natural meaning of the words "shall be substituted". This part could not become effective without the assent of the Governor-General. The State Governor's assent was insuffi- cient. It could not be inferred that, what was intended was that, in case the substitution failed or proved ineffective, some repeal, not mentioned at all, was brought about and remained effective so as to create what may be described as a vacuum in the statutory law on the subject matter. Pri- marily, the question is one of gathering the intent from the use of words in the enacting provision seen in the light of the procedure gone through. Here, no intention to reveal, without a substitution, is deducible. In other words, there' could be no repeal if substitution failed. The two were a part and parcel of a single indivisible process and not bits of a disjointed operation. Looking at the actual procedure which was gone through, we find that, even if the Governor had assented to the substitution, yet the amendments would have been effective, as a piece of valid legislation, only when the assent of the Governor-General had also been accorded to it. It could not be said that what the Legislature intended. or what the Governor had assented to consisted of a separate repeal and a fresh enactment. The two results were to follow from one and the same effective Legislative process. The process had, therefore, to be so viewed and interpreted. Some help was sought to be derived by the citation of B.N. Tewari v. Union of India & Ors.,(1) and the case of Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co v. State of Madras (supra). Tewari's case (supra) related to the substitution of what was described as the "carry forward" rule contained in the departmental instruction which was sought to be substituted by a modified instruction declared invalid by the Court. It was held that when the rule contained in the modified in- struction of 1955 was struck down the rule contained in a displaced instruction did not survive. Indeed, one of the arguments there was that the original "carry forward" rule of 1952 was itself void for the very reason for which the "carry forward" rule, contained in the modified instructions of 1955, had been struck down. Even the analogy of a merger of an order into another which was meant to be its substi- tute could apply only where there is a valid substitution. Such a doctrine applies in a case where a judgment of a Subordinate Court merges in the judgment of the Appellate Court or an order reviewed merges in the order by which the review is granted. Its application to a legislative process may be possible only in cases of valid substitution. The legislative intent and its effect is gathered, inter alia, from the nature of the action of the authority which func- tions. It is easier to impute an intention to an executive rule making authority to repeal altogether in any event what is sought to be displaced by another rule. The cases cited were of executive instructions. We do not think that they could serve as useful guides in interpreting a Legislative provision sought to be amended by a fresh enactment. The procedure for enactment is far more elaborate and formal. A repeal and a displacement of a Legislative provision by a fresh enactment can only take place after that elaborate procedure has State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  10 been followed in toto. In the case of any rule contained in an executive instruction. (1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 421. on the other hand, the repeal as well as displacement are capable of being achieved and inferred from a bare issue of fresh instructions on the same subject. In Mehtab Majid & Co's case (supra) a statutory role was held not to have revived after it was sought to be substi- tuted by another held to be invalid. This was also a case in which no elaborate legislative procedure was prescribed for a repeal as it is in the case of statutory enactment of statutes by legislatures. In every case, it is a question of intention to be gathered from the language as well as the acts of the rulemaking or legislating authority in.the context in which these occur. A principle of construction contained now in a statutory provision made in England since 1850 has been: "Where an Act passed after 1850 repeals wholly or partially any former enactment and substitutes provision for the enactment repealed, the repealed enactment remains in force until the substituted provisions come into operation". (See: Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn. Vol. 36, P. 474; Craies on "Statute Law", 6th Edn. p.386). Although, there is no corresponding provision in our General Clauses Acts, yet, it shows that the mere use of words denoting a substitution does not ipso facto or automatically repeal a provision until the provision which is to take its place becomes legally effective. We have, as explained above reached the same conclusion by considering the ordi- nary and natural meaning of the term "substitution" when it occurs. without anything else in the language used or in the context of it or in the surrounding facts and circumstances to lead to another inference. It means, ordinarily, that unless the substituted provision is there to take its place, in law and in effect, the pre-existing provision continues. There is no question of a "revival". This question of interpretation was referred separately to the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court which drew a distinction between the two meanings of the word "substitut- ed"; firstly, where it involved a direction as to what would have to be removed or repealed simultaneously with another as to what was to be substituted, so as to involve two directions and secondly where the "substitution" merely carried one direction to modify . It is difficult to see how a single direction to -one direction to modify. It is difficult to see how a single direction to substitute would be effective without implying in it another to remove 'what was to be displaced. Perhaps more simply and correct- ly stated, the difference between two meanings of the word "substituted" is one 'where it stands for two separable legislative process and another where it stands for one total or completed legislative procedure, including the assent of the Governor-General, which would be covered by the words "shall be substituted". The Full Bench came to the conclusion that, in the context in which the words directing substitution occur, they do not imply that in the event of the failure of the State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  11 amendment, taken as a whole a repeal would survive. To be able to "Survive" a repeal had first to come into existence. In the situation before us no repeal came into legal existence. The real question for determination is always one of the meaning of words used in a purported enactment in a particu- lar context. We think that the Full Bench of the High Court correctly held that there was no repeal of the existing provision when "substitution", by means of an amendment, failed to be effective. It had also rightly distinguished some of the cases cited before it on the ground that, in those cases, the process for substitution was interpreted to necessarily imply both a repeal and re-enactment out of which only the repeal which took place had survived when the re-enactment proved abortive. On the question whether the particular goods existed in Madhya Pradesh at all at the time of the contracts, so that the contract could be said to be referable to them, the High Court had observed: " .... the question was whether Oriental Mixture was present in the former State of Madhya Pradesh when the contracts of sale in respect of Oriental Mixture were made by the applicant company. On this point, which was purely a question of fact, the decision of the second appellate authority was final and that decision was that Oriental Mixture in the form in which the contracts to sell that commodity were made was present in the State of Madhya Pradesh at the time when those contracts were made. Therefore, that point was not open for decision before the Tribunal and it is not necessary to dilate on the facts relating to that question". It also said: "In Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur v. Hesenali Adamji & Co. (1959) (10 STC 297), there was no evidence that at the date when the agreement for sale was made, the particular logs delivered there- under were in Central Provinces in the shape of logs at all, and a standing tree which was in existence at the date of the agreement of sale and out of which the logs were later on prepared cannot be said to be the form of the commodity in respect of which the agree- ment of sale was made. The Tribunal relied on the observations in the Judgment of the Su- preme Court at page 310 which are to the effect that the goods must, at the date of the contract, be there in the taxing State in the form in which they are agreed to be sold. In that case, the agreement of sale can be said to be in respect of those goods. Here, as found by the second appellate authority, ore in the form of Oriental Mixture was present in the taxing State when contracts of sale in re- spect of Oriental Mixture were made by the Head Office of the applicant company". After giving the findings set out above, on the question whether the. goods existed in the State of Madhya Pradesh when they were sold and, whether the contracts were refera- ble to these goods, the High Court proceeded to consider the question whether "Oriental Mix- ture" itself had come into existence in Madhya Pradesh or at the port where the goods forming the "Oriental Mixture" State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  12 became mixed up in the process of unloading and transporta- tion. Apparently, what the High Court had meant by its earlier findings was not that the "Oriental Mixture" was in existence in Madhya Pradesh, but that the ingredients which went into its composition existed in Madhya Pradesh at the time when the contracts were made. It had finally reached the conclusion that the Mixture itself was formed at the port where the ingredients were unloaded. We are unable to accept the High Court's reasoning that, while the goods which went into the composition of the "Oriental Mixture" existed in Madhya Pradesh when the contracts were made, yet, they were not taxable in Madhya Pradesh because' the "Oriental Mixture" came into existence at the port. In other words, it held that a mere mixture of goods, even if it occurs in the process of unloading, converts the goods, which existed in Madhya Pradesh and were transported to the port, into separately identifiable commercial commodity Known as "Oriental Mixture". As already mentioned above, this term is not used in the contracts but is a term employed by the firm itself to indicate the specifications contained in the contracts of goods ordered. It is difficult to see what process of manufacture is gone through so as to bring a new category or genus of commercial goods into existence at the port. The High Court had relied on cases where raw tobacco subjected to various processes, such as sprinkling of jag- gery juice or water on it and allowing it to ferment for some time before cutting it up and packing it, was held to become a new commodity. These cases were: The State of Madras v. Bell Mark Tobacco Co. C); The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory(2); Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. The State of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) & Ors. (3). Reliance was also placed on behalf of the assessee on Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu(4), where it was held that goods were actually subjected to a process of manufacturing when chemical fertilisers and fillers like "China clay", "gypsum", and other ingredients, were mixed at a "mixing works" of a company, by means of shovels, so as to conform to a particular formula. It was held there by this Court that the resulting product was a commercially distinct commodity. Several cases of manure mixtures are referred to in the case. Now,' in the case of manure mixtures, made out of different ingredients, at a "mixing works", it can per- haps be said that a chemical process is gone through. In any case, the product which came into existence was known and sold as a separate commercial commodity in the mar- ket. It required a process to be gone through at what were known as mixing works of the company to convert it into that commodity. On the other hand, in the case before us, it seems to us that what has been "manufactured" by the asses- see is the same "Oriental Mixture" (1) (1967) 19 S.T.C. 129. (2) (1966) 17 S.T.C. 316. (3) (1960) 11 S.T.C. 698. (4) (1976) 3 S.T.C. 522. only if the term "manufacture" can be employed at all to anything done by the assessee. What is to be determined is whether there has been the manufacture of a new product which has a separate commercially current name in the mar- ket. The mere giving of a new name by the seller to what is really the same product is not the "manufacture" of a new product. There is, it appears to us, no new process of the manufacture of goods at all by the assessee before us. Again, cases in which logs of State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  13 wood were cut in order to convert them into planks [e.g. Shaw Bros & Co. v. The State of West Bengal(1)] could be of no assistance in the case before us. That too could be a process of "manufacture". The High Court had also made a passing reference to Nil- giri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. The State of Bombay(2), a case decided by the Bombay High Court, where different brands of tea, purchased in bulk and "without application of any mechanical or chemical process", were mixed so as to conform to a particular mixing formula, but this mixture was held not to constitute a fresh commodity as neither process- ing nor alteration of the ingredients of the tea in any manner had taken place. We think that the similarity of the process to which goods sold were subjected in this case seems to make the reasoning adopted in this case more prop- erly applicable to the cases before us than any other found in other cases mentioned above. In any event, we are unable to see how, without Subject- ing to some process the various grades of ores, mixed up in the process of transporting, so as to conform to the speci- fications given in the contract, could result in a new commercial product as it is known in the market. The ingre- dients were not even shown to have got so mixed up as to become inseparable. As already mentioned above, this is a case in which the term "Oriental Mixture" was nothing more than a name given by the appellant company itself to the goods which were in the State of Madhya Pradesh at the relevant time and sent from there specially in order to satisfy the specifications given in the contracts. The goods get mixed up in the process of unloading. The mere fact that the specifications in the contracts are satisfied when they get mixed up is not a good enough ground for holding that a new product has been manufactured. They could no more constitute a new commodity than parts of some machinery sent by its manufacturer to a purchaser outside a State, so that the buyer has to just fit in the various parts together, becomes a new commodity when the parts are fitted in. The mere fitting up of parts or a mixture of goods, without employing any mechanical or chemical process of manufacture, could not, we think, result in a new commod- ity. We, therefore, answer the following six questions before the High Court as follows: Q. 1. Was the Tribunal right in holding that, although the assessment order was made after the Constitution of India came into force, Article 286 was thereby not contravened, because such order related to a period prior to 26.1.1950? (1) (1963) 14 S.T.C. 878. (2) (1959) 10 S.T.C. 500. Ans. Yes, The provisions of Article 286 were not contravened. Q. 2. Was the Tribunal right in holding that Explanation (II) to Section 2(g) as was origi- nally embodied in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, got restored on the Statute-book because of the unconstitutionality of the substituted Expla- nation enacted in the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 ? Ans. There is no question of restoration of unamended explanation (II) to Section 2(g) as the purported amendment itself did not take effect. Hence, the unamended provision stood as it was before the attempted amendment. The question framed rests on a misconception that there was State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  14 something to be restored. As nothing was taken away, nothing was there to be restored. And, there was nothing added or substituted. Q. 3. Does the Tribunal's decision not contra- dict the true meaning of the language "sale of any goods which are actually in the Central Provinces and Berar at the time when the contract of sale as defined in that Act in respect thereof is made", as occuring in Explanation (II) to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act, with reference to "in respect thereof" is reference to "specified or ear- marked" goods which are actually present in the taxing State when the contracts are made ? Ans. This is a question of fact as to what contracts specify and whether those goods were taxed, on which the finding already recorded are enough to dispose it off against the assessee. Q. 4. In any case, was the Tribunal right in its interpretation, application and use of the provisions of original Explanation (II) to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act even as they were ? Ans. Yes. Q. 5. Was the Tribunal right in assuming the law to be that the existence of ingredients of ores in the taxing State in question, which were sufficient if and when mixed in the due proportion for yielding different varieties of standard mixtures contracted for by the over- seas buyers, was in law enough to attract the tax ? Ans. There is no question of assuming any- thing. The process which was revealed and findings of fact given on it show that it did not result in the production of a new commodi- ty at the port. It was only manganese ore of different grades which was unloaded at the port and gives the name of "Oriental Mixture" because the ingredients got mixed up automati- cally in transportation and satisfied certain specifications. No new commodity was produced in this process. Q. 6. Was the Tribunal right in holding that the Sales Tax Authorities had found as a fact that the goods consisting of oriental mixture were in the Madhya Pradesh State when the contracts in respect of these goods were made ? Ans. Yes. Before we part with the case we may observe that the questions could have been much more lucidly and simply and less culmsily stated. The appeals of the assessee company against the deci- sions of the Full Bench are dismissed. The appeals of the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Division Bench are allowed. Parties will hear their own costs, V.P.S. Appeals dismissed. State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976  15