{"id":186178,"date":"2001-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001"},"modified":"2016-10-08T18:33:48","modified_gmt":"2016-10-08T13:03:48","slug":"ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N.Khare, S.N.Variava<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 11768  of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S.  PARK LEATHER INDUSTRY (P) LTD.  & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.Khare, S.N.Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  Appeal  is against a judgment dated\t 10th  July,
\n1996.\tBy  this judgment a number of Writ  Petitions  filed
\nbefore\tthe  Allahabad High Court have been dismissed.\t The
\nPetitioners  in\t all  the  Writ\t Petitions  were  doing\t the
\nbusiness  of  preparing\t tanned and finished  leather.\t The
\nquestion  involved  in\tall the four Petitions\twas  whether
\n‘tanned leather’ can be subjected to Uttar Pradesh Mandi Fee
\npayable\t under the provisions of U.P.  Krishi Utapadan Mandi
\nAdhiniyam,  1964  (hereinafter for the sake  of\t convenience
\ncalled the said Act).  For an understanding of this question
\nit  is necessary to see Section 2 (a) of the said Act  which
\nreads as follows :  “‘Agricultural produce’ means such items
\nof   produce  of   agriculture,\t horticulture,\tviticulture,
\napiculture,  sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry  or
\nforest\tas  are\t specified  in the  Schedule,  and  includes
\nadmixture  of  two or more of such items, and also  includes
\nany  such item in processed form, and further includes\tGur,
\nRab, Shakkar, Kandsari and jaggery”.\n<\/p>\n
      Schedule\tG  of  the  said   Act\tdeals  with  “Animal
\nHusbandry”.   Serial No.  11 thereunder includes ‘hides\t and
\nskins’.\t  The  question\t which had been raised in  the\tWrit
\nPetitions  and\twhich  is raised here is  whether  the\tterm
\n‘hides\tand  skins’ includes ‘tanned leather’.\tMr.   Sudhir
\nChandra\t has  submitted\t that admittedly  the  term  ‘tanned
\nleather’  has  not  been used either in the Act\t or  in\t the
\nSchedule.   He admits that under Section 2(a), not just\t the
\nitems  which have been specified in the Schedule but also an
\nadmixture of two or more such items or any of those items in
\na  processed  form,  would also be included.   He,  however,
\nsubmits that tanned leather is not ‘hide or skin’ and is not
\nderived\t by  processing ‘hide’ or ‘skin’.  He  submits\tthat
\n‘tanned\t leather’  is a manufactured commodity.\t He  submits
\nthat  “tanned  leather” is an entirely\tdifferent  commodity
\nfrom  ‘hide’  or ‘skin’.  In support of his contention\tthat
\n‘tanned\t leather’  is a different commodity from ‘hide’\t and
\n‘skin’\the relies upon a Judgment of the Constitution  Bench
\nof  this  Court\t in the case of A Hajee\t Abdul\tShakoor\t and
\nCompany\t v.   State  of Madras<\/a> reported in 1964\t (8)  S.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
217.   In this case the Petitioners were dealers in skins in
\nthe  State of Madras.  They purchased raw skins from  places
\nboth  within  and outside the State of Madras, tanned  those
\nskins  and  sold them through their agents in Madras.\tThey
\nwere  assessed\tto  sales tax under the\t provisions  of\t the
\nMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and under rules 16(2)(ii)
\nof  the\t Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and\t Assessment)
\nRules.\t They filed the Petition under Article 32 contending
\nthat  Section  2  of the Madras General Sales  Tax  (Special
\nProvisions)  Act,  1963\t was ultra vires  the  Constitution.
\nThat  challenge\t was upheld on the ground that Section\t2(1)
\ndiscriminated  against\timported hides and skins  and  local
\nhides  and  skins.  It was however held that Rule 16(1)\t did
\nnot  become  invalid because Rule 16(2) had been held to  be
\ninvalid.   Under  the Rules tax was levied on sale of  hides
\nand  skins in raw condition but no tax was levied on sale of
\nhides  and skins in tanned condition.  Therefore, the  Rules
\nthemselves made a distinction between hides and skins in raw
\ncondition  and hides and skins in tanned condition.  It\t was
\ncontended  that\t hides and skins whether tanned or  untanned
\nconstituted  one commodity and, therefore, there could be no
\ntax  on sales of hides and skins in raw condition when there
\nwas  no tax on sale of hides and skins in tanned  condition.
\nIt  was\t held that they were two different  commodities\t and
\nconstituted   two  separate  categories\t  for  purposes\t  of
\ntaxation.   It\twas  so held because the  two  were  treated
\ndifferently in the Rules.  Reliance was also placed upon the
\nauthority  in  the  case of TVL K.A.K.\tAnwar And  Co.\t vs.
\nState of T.N.  reported in 1998 (1) S.C.C.  437.  This again
\nwas a case under the T.N.  General Sales Tax Act, 1959.\t The
\nquestion  here\twas whether raw hides and skins and  dressed
\nhides  and  skins  were different  commodities.\t  The  Court
\nfollowing  the\tdecision  in A.\t Hajee Abdul Shukoor  &\t Co.
\n(Supra)\t held  that dressed hides and skins  were  different
\ngoods from raw hides and skins.\t It may be noted that it was
\nso  held in the context of the definition as given in Item 7
\nof  the Second Schedule of the said Act, which provided both
\nfor  raw hides and skins as well as dressed hides and skins.
\nThus the Act itself made a distinction between raw hides and
\nskins and dressed hides and skins.  It is on that basis that
\nthe  Court held that they were not the same commodity.\t Mr.
\nSudhir Chandra also placed reliance in the case of Rajasthan
\nRoller\tFlour  Mills Association and another vs.   State  of
\nRajasthan  and\tothers reported in AIR 1994 S.C.  64.\tThis
\nwas  a case under the Central Sales Tax Act and the question
\nfor  consideration was whether the term “Wheat”, within\t the
\nmeaning\t of Section 14(i)(iii) of that Act, included “flour,
\nmaida  and suji” which were derived from Wheat.\t It was held
\nthat  flour, maida and suji are different and distinct goods
\nfrom  wheat.  It was held that flour, maida or suji were not
\nincluded  in the Act and they would not fall within the term
\n“Wheat” as defined in the Act.\tIt must immediately be noted
\nthat  the Act only contained the term “Wheat”.\tThat Act did
\nnot  cover “Wheat” in its processed form.  It is because the
\nAct did not cover “Wheat in a processed form” that the Court
\nheld  that  flour, maida and suji were not wheat.   Reliance
\nwas  also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case
\nof Edward Keventer Pvt.\t Ltd.  vs.  Bihar State Agricultural
\nMarketing  Board and Ors.<\/a>  reported in 2000 (6) S.C.C.\t264.
\nIn  this case the question was whether fruit drinks “Frooti”
\nand  “Appy” fell within the term agricultural produce  under
\nthe  Bihar  Agricultural  Produce Markets Act,\t1960.\tThis
\nCourt  held that even though these “Frooti” and “Appy”\twere
\nmanufactured  out  of mango pulp and apple  concentrate\t but
\nafter  the mango pulp and apple concentrates were  processed
\nand  beverages\twere  manufactured,   the  products  becomes
\nentirely  different  from the fruits that is the  mango\t and
\napple.\t It was held that even though the basic character of
\nthe  mango  pulp  and apple concentrate may  be\t present  in
\nbeverages,  but the end products were not fruits which\twere
\nspecified  in the Schedule.  On this basis it was held\tthat
\nthe  products  like “Frooti” and “Appy” were not covered  by
\nthe  Item Agricultural produce as defined in Section 2(i)(a)
\nof  that Act.  Mr.  Sudhir Chandra also relied upon the case
\nof  M\/s.  Saraswati Sugar Mills vs.  Haryana State Board and
\nothers<\/a>\treported in AIR (1992) S.C.  224 for the proposition
\nthat  there  is\t a   difference\t between  ‘manufacture’\t and
\n‘processing’.\tIn  this  case the question was\t whether  an
\nindustry  which\t manufactures  sugar  from  sugar  cane\t was
\ncovered\t by Entry 15 of Schedule I to the Water\t (Prevention
\nand  Control  of  Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.   The  relevant
\nEntry  under which the industry was sought to be brought  in
\nwas  item  15  of Schedule I which reads as  “processing  of
\nanimal or vegetable products industry”.\t This Court held, in
\npara  13, that the term ‘processing’ as normally  understood
\nwould  mean  that  even after processing the  product  would
\nretain\tits  character.\t  The Court held  that\t‘processing’
\nessentially  effectuates a change in form, contour, physical
\nappearance   or\t chemical  combination\t or   otherwise\t  by
\nartificial  or\tnatural\t means.\t  The\tCourt  held  that  a
\n‘manufacture’ implies a change but that every change was not
\n‘manufacture’.\t The  Court  held   that  for  ‘manufacture’
\nsomething  more\t was  necessary\t and that there\t must  be  a
\ntransformation\tand  a new and distinct article must  emerge
\nhaving\ta distinctive name, character or use.  Based on this
\nauthority  it  was  submitted  that  tanned  leather  was  a
\ndifferent  article  and\t a distinctive\tcommodity  having  a
\ndistinctive  name, character and use and that tanned leather
\nwas  a manufactured item.  In our view the authority  would,
\nif  anything  be  against the  Appellants.   Tanned  leather
\nretains its basic character namely, it remains hide or skin,
\nthough there is some change in form and physical appearance.
\nLastly\treliance was placed upon the case of Union of  India
\nand another, etc.  v.  I.  Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
\nLtd.,  etc.   reported in AIR (1963) S.C.  791.\t This was  a
\ncase under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the question
\nwas  whether  the  Raw\toils which  were  purified  but\t not
\ndeodorised  in\tthe process of manufacture of Vanaspati\t was
\ncovered by the expression “non- essential vegetable oils” in
\nItem 12 of Schedule I of that Act.  In this case it was held
\nthat  processing  cannot be equated to manufacture.  It\t was
\nheld  that the word “manufacture” is generally understood to
\nmean  as “bringing into existence a new substance” and\tdoes
\nnot mean merely “to produce some change in a substance”.  In
\nour  view this authority would also show that in fact  there
\nis  no manufacture but mere processing of hides and skins to
\nbring  them  into  a  tanned state.  Based  upon  the  above
\nauthorities  Mr.   Sudhir  Chandra  submitted  that  ‘tanned
\nleather’ was not an ‘agricultural produce’ inasmuch as it is
\na  different item or commodity from hide and skin and it  is
\nan item which is not a processed form of hide or skin but an
\nitem  which is manufactured.  He submits that for the  above
\nreasons\t the Judgment of the High Court cannot be  sustained
\nand  requires to be set aside.\tAs against this Mr.  Pradeep
\nMisra submitted that definitions and meanings given in other
\nActs  or  in  the  context  of\tother  Acts  can  be  of  no
\nassistance.   He  submits  that\t one  has  to  look  at\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe said Act itself.  He submitted that\t the
\nterm ‘agricultural produce’ had been given a wide meaning in
\nSection\t 2 (a) of the said Act.\t He points out that it is  a
\ndefinition  which is not an exhaustive definition but is  an
\ninclusive  definition.\tHe submits that any item would be an
\n‘agricultural produce’ if it is specified in the Schedule or
\nif  it is an admixture of two or more items specified in the
\nSchedule  or  if it is a processed form of any of the  items
\nspecified  in the Schedule.  He points out that in U.P.\t all
\nActs  are enacted in Hindi even though an equivalent English
\nversion is printed.  He points out that in the Hindi version
\nthe  terms  used  are ‘Khal Va Chamra’.\t He submits  that  a
\ndictionary  meaning  of\t the term ‘Chamra’  is\tleather\t and
\ntherefore  the Hindi version clearly shows that leather\t was
\nmeant  to  be  included.   He admits that  if  there  was  a
\nconflict  between  an Hindi version and an  English  version
\nthen  by virtue of Article 384 of the Constitution of  India
\nthe English version would prevail.  He submits that if there
\nis  no conflict, then the Hindi version can be looked at  in
\norder  to determine any ambiguity or to find out if any item
\nis  included or not.  In support of his submission he relies
\nupon  the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kanpur & Ors.
\nvs.   Ganga  Dal Mill and Co.  and Ors.,<\/a> etc.\treported  in
\n1984  (4) S.C.C.  516.\tThis was a case under the said\tAct.
\nThe  question was whether ‘Dal’ of legume is an agricultural
\nproduce\t and therefore eligible to market fee.\tIn that case
\nit  had\t been argued, as in the present case, that as  ‘Dal’
\nhas not been specified in the Schedule and it was a distinct
\ncommodity  no  market fee could be levied.  This Court\theld
\nthat to resolve a controversy of this nature one has to seek
\nlight  from  the  definition   of  expression  ‘agricultural
\nproduce’  as set out in Section 2(a) of the Act.  This Court
\nheld that no resort can be taken to decisions under entirely
\ndifferent  statutes, such as the sales tax laws, to find out
\nwhether\t the  product  were  same   or\ttwo  different\t and
\nindependent  products  commercially so recognised.   It\t was
\nheld  that it was an indisputable canon of construction that
\nwhere  an expression is defined in the statute, unless there
\nis  anything  repugnant\t in  the  subject  or  context,\t the
\nexpression  had\t to be construed as having the same  meaning
\nassigned  to it in the dictionary clause of the statute.  It
\nwas held that ‘Dal’ was nothing else but a whole grain split
\ninto   two  folds  in  its   processed\tform   acquired\t  by
\nmanufacturing process and that was therefore an agricultural
\nproduce.   After  so  holding this Court held as  follows  :
\n“14.   This  very  conclusion can be reached by\t a  slightly
\ndifferent   route.   As\t is   well-known,  the\t legislative
\nenactments  in\tthe State of U.P.  are enacted primarily  in
\nHindi language and its official and authentic translation in
\nEnglish\t is simultaneously published.  Bearing this in mind,
\nwe  turn to the notification dated April 11, 1978 specifying
\nlegumes therein enumerated as specified agricultural produce
\nfor  various Market Areas.  The heading under which  various
\nlegumes are enumerated is ‘Dwi Daliya Utpadan’.\t This tongue
\ntwister\t was  explained to us to mean that legume itself  is
\nDwi  Daliya  Utpadan  i.e., the whole grain is made  of\t two
\nfolds.\t Ek daliya grain is without a fold.  Dwi Daliya is a
\ngrain  composed\t of two folds and certainly not many  folds.
\nConcise Oxford Dictionary specifies the meaning of legume to
\nbe “fruit, edible part, pod, of leguminous plant;  vegetable
\nused  for  food,”  and\t‘leguminous’ to mean  “like  of\t the
\nbotanical  family of pulse”.  And in common parlance ‘pulse’
\nconnotes  legume  and  denotes\tdal  of\t legume.   Reverting
\nhowever,  to the heading under which legumes are  enumerated
\nin  1978 notification, it must be confessed that it  clearly
\nconnotes  the  meaning\tto be given to the whole  grain\t and
\ndenotes\t dal  i.e.   split folds as  specified\tagricultural
\nproduce.   The\tHindi protagonists used the expression\t‘Dwi
\nDaliya\tUtpadan’ meaning thereby double folded grain  called
\nGram, Peas, Arhar, Moong etc.  on a strict construction, the
\ntwo  dals  i.e.\t two parts forming the whole grain both\t are
\ncomprehended  in  the  expression   ‘Dwi  Daliya   Utpadan’.
\nTherefore,  it\tis  crystal  clear  that  while\t enumerating
\nlegumes\t in  the  Schedule  and\t  reproduced  in  the\t1978
\nnotification  to  make them specified agricultural  produce,
\nthe  framers  intended to include both the grain as a  whole
\nand  its  split\t parts the dal.\t And when  the\tagricultural
\nproduce\t enumerated  in the Schedule such as Gram  including
\nits  processed part is reproduced in the notification as Dwi
\nDaliya\tUtpadan,  the  dal of each of  the  legumes  therein
\nmentioned became specified agricultural produce.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  is thus to be seen that the Court derived  support
\nfor  its  conclusion by looking at the Hindi version of\t the
\nsaid  Act  on the ground that it was well known that in\t the
\nState of U.P.  enanctments were in Hindi language.  Reliance
\nwas  also placed upon the case of Rathi Khandsari Udyog\t and
\nOrs.   vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.  reported in\t1985
\n(2)  S.C.C.  485.  This was also a case under the said\tAct.
\nThe  question before the Court was whether ‘Khandsari sugar’
\nmanufactured  by  an  open pan process was  an\tagricultural
\nproduce\t within\t the meaning of the said Act.  In this\tcase
\nalso  based upon a Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and\tU.P.
\nKhandsari  Sugar Manufacturer’s Licensing Order, 1967,\tboth
\nof which define ‘khandsari sugar’ it had been contended that
\n‘khandsari  sugar’  was a distinct and a separate  commodity
\nfrom  ‘khandsari’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the said Act
\nand  therefore\tno market fee could be levied on  ‘khandsari
\nsugar’.\t  This contention was negatived and it was held that
\n‘khandsari’  was a genus and ‘khandsari sugar’ was a species
\nand in the market both were merely known as ‘khandsari’.  It
\nwas  held that the word ‘khandsari’ was wide enough to cover
\n‘khandsari’  produced  by  any\tprocess\t regardless  of\t its
\nquality or variety.  It may be mentioned that a challenge to
\nSection\t 2 (a) on the ground that it was discriminatory\t and
\nviolative  of  Article 14 was also repelled.   Reliance\t was
\nalso  placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti  &
\nAnr.  vs.  M\/s.\t Shankar Industries & Ors.<\/a>  reported in 1993
\nSupp  (3) S.C.C.  361(II).  This again was a case under\t the
\nsaid  Act.  The question was whether ‘gur-lauta’,  ‘raskat’,
\n‘rab- galawat’ and ‘rab-salawat’ were ‘agricultural produce’
\nunder  the  said  Act.\t In  this case\tit  was\t noted\tthat
\nsugarcane was an agricultural produce out of which juice was
\nextracted.   The juice was then thickened by dehydration and
\nwhen  it  reached a particular pigment it took the  form  of
\n‘rab’  which  is a semi-solid form of the  sugarcane  juice.
\nAfter  boiling this ‘rab’ was put in a crystalliser where it
\nwas  allowed  to get cooled and crystals were  formed  which
\nwere then rotated in the crystalliser.\tThe crystallised rab
\nwas  then put into centrifugal machines in which through the
\nprocess\t of  infusion  of sulphur, the sugarcane  juice\t was
\ncleaned\t and whitened.\tThe ‘rab’ which was not put into the
\ncentrifugal  machine but which was dehydrated and allowed to
\nbe  hardened by the open pan process became ‘gur’, which was
\nsold  for home consumption.  The ‘rab’ which was not allowed
\nto  be hardened was also sold in semi-solid form but certain
\npersons\t who  wanted to make further profits put this  ‘rab’
\ninto  centrifugal machines and by the process of infusion of
\nsulphur\t   they\t  obtained    ‘khandsari’    in\t  the\t dry
\npowder\/crystallised  form  and the waste of ‘rab’ which\t was
\nobtained in the liquid form known as ‘molasses’.  ‘Molasses’
\nwas  further utilised by many people by boiling in the\topen
\npans  and  the same was again re-processed by  cleaning\t and
\ndehydrating  and  later by sulphitation was taken in  powder
\nform.\tThis  then was also sold in the market\tas  inferior
\nquality\t called ‘rab-galawat’.\tIt was held that there was a
\nfurther\t inferior quality of rab called ‘rab-salawat’.\t The
\ncontention was that ‘gur-lauta’, ‘raskat’, ‘rab-galawat’ and
\n‘rab-salawat’  were all different commodities which were not
\nthe  same as ‘gur’ or ‘rab’ and that therefore no market fee
\ncould  be levied on those commodities.\tThis Court held that
\na wide interpretation had to be given to Section 2(a) of the
\nsaid Act as the meaning was exhaustive and not restricted to
\nthe  items included in the Schedule.  It was held that items
\nwhich came into being in a processed form would be included.
\nIt was held that these items were ‘agricultural produce’ and
\nmarket\tfee  could be levied on these items.   Mr.   Pradeep
\nMisra  then relied upon the case of State of Tamil Nadu etc.
\nvs.   Mahi Traders & Ors.  etc.\t reported in 1989 (1) S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
724.   He  clarified that this was a case under the  Central
\nSales  Tax  Act and that he was not saying that\t this  would
\ntherefore  be an authority for considering the definition of
\nthe  term  “agricultural  produce” under the said  Act.\t  He
\nsubmitted that in this case certain opinions of the Ministry
\nof  Commerce  and  Industry  as well as\t glossary  of  terms
\npublished  by  the  Council  of\t Scientific  and  Industrial
\nResearch  had been reproduced.\tHe stated that he was merely
\nbringing  those portions of the judgment to the attention of
\nthe  Court.   In  this\tbehalf he showed to  the  Court\t the
\nparagraphs 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13, which read as follows :\t “6.
\nTurning to coloured leather, we may, at the outset, refer to
\na   very   important  circumstance   referred  to   by\t the
\nrespondents.   When the CST Act came into force on April  1,
\n1957,  a  question was raised regarding the meaning  of\t the
\nexpression  ‘hides  and\t skins\tin dressed  state’  used  in
\nSection\t 14.   The  matter  was\t  referred  to\tthe  leather
\ndevelopment  wing  of the Ministry of Commerce and  Industry
\nwhich gave the following opinion :\n<\/p>\n
      Hides  and skins are obtained from either\t slaughtered
\nor  dead animals.  The raw hides and skins thus obtained are
\nknown\tto  be\tin  the\t  Green\t State.\t  These\t are  easily
\nputrescible;  if proper precautions are not taken they would
\neasily\trot  and  decay.   Since tanneries  are\t not  always
\nlocated\t very  near the source of raw hides and\t skins,\t the
\nquestion of preserving them for a temporary period till they
\nreach  a  tanning centre assumes importance.  Raw hides\t and
\nskins  are  ‘cured’  by either wet salting, dry\t salting  or
\ndrying.\t  In  the  ‘cured state’ the raw  materials  can  be
\npreserved  for\ta temporary period.  In the third  stage  of
\ntemporary  preservation, the hides and skins are  ‘pickled’.
\nDuring\tthe  next stage they are tanned in which state\tthey
\ncan  be\t preserved almost indefinitely.\t These tanned  hides
\nand  skins are processed further to yield Dressed Hides\t and
\nSkins  which  are  ready  for use.   ‘Dressed’\tor  finished
\nmaterial could also be preserved almost indefinitely.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the\t above, it will be seen that the  expressing
\n‘Hides\tand skins in the raw or dressed state’ refers at one
\nend  to\t the raw material obtained from the  slaughtered  or
\ndead  animals  and at the other to the tanned  and  finished
\nmaterial;   the expression, therefore, seems to include\t the
\nother\tintermediate  stages  indicated\t  in  the   previous
\nparagraphs.    Dressing,  according  to\t the   authoritative
\ninterpretations,  would mean the conversion of tanned  hides
\nand  skins  by further suitable processing into leathers  of
\ndifferent   types   which   are\t   ready   for\t use   (vide
\nSBT\/18(495)\/14) of November 11, 1957).\n<\/p>\n
      9.   Can it then be said that the view expressed above
\nis  clearly  wrong?  We think not;  on the contrary,  it  is
\nseen  to be quite correct.  The statutory expression  refers
\nto  “hides  and skins in a dressed state”.   The  guidelines
\nissued\tfor identification of ‘finished’ leather for exports
\nby  the Indian Standards Institution (ISI) refer to as\tmany
\nas  19 operations or processes undergone during\t manufacture
\nof  ‘finished leather’ but ‘dressing’ is not one of them.  A
\nglossary  of  terms  relating to hides,\t skins\tand  leather
\npublished  by  the  ISI\t in   1960  contains  the  following
\ndefinitions:\n<\/p>\n
      CRUSTS:\t(Crust\tLeather)  – Tanned hides  and  skins
\nwithout any finish.\n<\/p>\n
      CURRYING:\t   A  series  of   dressing  and   finishing
\nprocesses  applied to leather after tanning in the course of
\nwhich\tappropriate   amounts  of   oils  and  greases\t are
\nincorporated  in  the leather to give it  increased  tensile
\nstrength, flexibility and water resisting properties.\n<\/p>\n
      DRESSED  HIDES:\tTanned hides, curried  or  otherwise
\nfinished, for various purposes, such as belting, harness and
\nsaddlery, travel goods and for upholstery.\n<\/p>\n
      DRESSING LEATHER:\t Vegetable tanned hides which may be
\ndressed\t to suit the purpose for which they are to be  used,
\nsuch as for harness, saddlery and other mechanical purposes.\n<\/p>\n
      LEATHER:\t The  skin  or hide of animals\tprepared  by
\ntanning,  which still retains its original fibrous structure
\nmore  or less intact, but from which hair or wool may or may
\nnot have been removed and which has been treated so as to be
\nimputrescible even after treatment with water.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   The earlier glossary of such terms published  by
\nthe  British  Standard Institution defines ‘dressing’  as  a
\n“general  term\tfor  the  series of  processes\temployed  to
\nconvert\t certain  rough tanned hides and skins and\/or  crust
\nleather\t into  leather ready for use”.\tAlso,  “Leather”  is
\ndefined\t as  “a\t general term for hide or skin\twhich  still
\nretains\t its original fibrous structure more or less intact,
\nand  which  has been treated so as to be imputrescible\teven
\nafter  treatment  with water”.\tThe hair or wool may or\t may
\nnot  have been removed.\t Certain skins, similarly treated or
\ndressed,  and  without the hair removed, are  termed  ‘fur’.
\nThe  Dictionary\t of  Leather Terminology  published  by\t the
\nTanners’  Council of America, describes leather as “the hide
\nand  skin  of any animal or any portion of such\t skin,\twhen
\ntanned, tawed or otherwise dressed for use”.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   The above definitions show that hides and  skins
\nacquire\t the name of ‘leather’, even if the hair or wool has
\nnot  been  removed therefrom, as soon as they  receive\tsome
\ntreatment  which  prevents  them   from\t putrefaction  after
\ntreatment  with water.\tDressing is a stage much later\tthan
\ntanning.  Indeed, from the definitions quoted above, it will
\nbe  seen that it is practically the same as giving finishing
\ntouches\t to  the  leather  and making it  suitable  for\t the
\nmanufacture of particular types of goods.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   The same conclusion is further borne out by\t the
\nliterature  referred  to  before  us  by  Sri  Ramachandran.
\nVolume\t7  of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under  the\tword
\n“dress”,  explains  that the verb has  various\tapplications
\nwhich  can be deduced from its original meaning and that “it
\nis  thus used not only of the putting on of the clothing but
\nof  the\t preparing and finishing of leather “.\tVolume\t17,
\nunder  the  head  “leather” details  the  various  processes
\napplied\t in the treatment of hides and skins at all  stages,
\npre-tanning,  tanning and post-tanning.\t Dyeing or colouring
\nis  a process which follows tanning but precedes “finishing:
\n(i.e.\tdressing)  in  order  to make it  suitable  for\t the
\npurpose which it is required in commercial usage.  Part V of
\nthe  “Wealth  of  India”, a publication of  the\t Council  of
\nScientific  and\t Industrial  Research (1966),  dealing\twith
\nleather under “Industrial Products” explains that “hides and
\nskins  are  liable to putrefaction and loss unless  suitably
\ntreated\t and  converted into leather”.\tStructurally,  hides
\nand  skins have a thick middle layer called corium, which is
\nconverted to leather by tanning.  The operations involved in
\nleather\t manufacture  however fall into three groups.\tPre-
\ntanning\t operations  includes soaking, liming,\tde-  liming,
\nbating\tand  pickling,\tand   post-tanning  operations\t are
\nsplitting  and\tshaving,  neutralising,\t bleaching,  dyeing,
\nfat-liquoring  and  stuffing, setting out, samming,  drying,
\nstaking\t and  finishing.   These   operations  bring   about
\nChemical  changes in the leather substance and influence the
\nphysical  characteristics  of  the  leather,  and  different
\nvarieties  of  commercial leather are obtained\tby  suitably
\nadjusting  the\tmanufacturing operations.   These  processes
\nneed not be gone into in detail but the passages relied upon
\nclearly\t show that hides and skins are termed ‘leather’ even
\nas  soon as the process of tanning is over and the danger of
\ntheir  putrefaction is put an end to.  The entry in the\t CST
\nAct,  however,\tincludes  within its scope hides  and  skins
\nuntil they are ‘dressed’.  This, as we have seen, represents
\nthe  stage  when they undergo the process of  finishing\t and
\nassume\ta  form\t in which they can be readily  utilised\t for
\nmanufacture  of various commercial articles.  In this  view,
\nit is hardly material that coloured leather may be a form of
\nleather\t or  may  even\tbe said\t to  represent\ta  different
\ncommercial  commodity.\tThe statutory entry is comprehensive
\nenough to include the products emerging from hides and skins
\nuntil the process of dressing or finishing is done.”\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.  Pradeep Misra submitted that tanned leather would
\nbe  covered  by\t the definition of  the\t term  “Agricultural
\nproduce”  as  defined  in  Section  2(a)  of  the  Act.\t  He
\nsubmitted  that it was merely a processed form of “hide\t and
\nskin”.\t He  submitted\tthat  cases   relied  upon  by\t the
\nAppellants  were of no help as all of them were under taxing
\nstatutes  and were merely interpreting terms in the  context
\nof  the\t definitions  given  in\t those\tstatutes.   We\thave
\nconsidered  the arguments of both the parties.\tIn our\tview
\nit  is clear that the interpretation has to be on the  basis
\nof  the\t expression  ‘Agricultural produce’ as\tset  out  in
\nSection\t 2(a) of the said Act.\tIn so determining  decisions
\nbased on different statutes such as Sales Tax Laws can be of
\nno  assistance.\t  All the cases relied upon by\tMr.   Sudhir
\nChandra\t are  cases  under  the taxing\tstatutes  where\t the
\ninterpretation\thas been given on the basis of the terms  as
\ndefined in those statutes.  A perusal of Section 2(a) of the
\nsaid  Act makes it clear that an agricultural product  would
\nbe a product which is specified in the Schedule or one which
\nis admixture of two or more items and would also include any
\nsuch  item  in\ta processed form.  In our view it  makes  no
\ndifference,  for  the  purposes of the said  Act,  that\t the
\nconcerned  item is a different commodity from the one  which
\nis  included in the Schedule.  It is possible that by virtue
\nof  an\tadmixture  of  two or more items  or  by  virtue  of
\nprocessing  a  different  commodity or item  may  come\tinto
\nexistence.   Even though a different commodity may come into
\nexistence,  it\twould  still be an  ‘Agricultural  produce’.
\nThis  is best illustrated by Sugarcane which is in  Schedule
\nA,  Item VIII at Serial No.  14.  From Sugarcane, “rab”\t and
\n“gur”\tare  manufactured.   They   are\t already   different
\ncommodities  or\t items.\t  Yet they are\tall  included.\t The
\nspecific  inclusion  of\t items\t like  “gur,  rab,  shakkar,
\nkhandsari  and\tjaggery”  is to make it\t clear\tthat  merely
\nbecause\t it becomes a different item or commodity it is\t not
\nexcluded.   We\tsee  no\t reason to go  into  the  difference
\nbetween\t ‘manufacturing’  and ‘processing’.  In\t the  strict
\nsense  of the terms there may be a difference.\tHowever,  we
\nare  not  required to go into these differences as,  in\t our
\nview,  it  is very clear, from what has been set out by\t the
\nAppellants  themselves in their affidavit that for hide\t and
\nskin to be converted into leather or tanned leather all that
\nis  required  is  a process.  It is a process  of  cleaning,
\ncuring\tand adding preservatives.  That it is a process\t has
\nbeen  held by this Court in the case of State of Tamil\tNadu
\nvs.  Mahi Traders and Others,<\/a> etc.  (Supra).  We are also of
\nthe  view  that the finished product i.e.  ‘tanned  leather’
\neven  though  it may have changed in physical appearance  or
\nchemical  combination and even though it may commercially be
\na  different  item still remains a ‘hide’ or a ‘skin’.\t For
\nthis  reason  we  are  of  the\topinion\t that  there  is  no
\nillegality  or infirmity in the judgment of the High  Court.
\nEven  otherwise\t our  above view is supported by  the  Hindi
\nversion\t of the definition.  As has been set out in the case
\nof  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Supra), it is well known in
\nU.P.   all legislations are in Hindi.  Of course an  English
\nversion\t simultaneously published.  Undoubtedly if there  is
\nconflict  between  the\ttwo than the English  version  would
\nprevail.   However,  if\t there is no conflict then  one\t can
\nalways have assistance of the Hindi version in order to find
\nout  whether the word used in English includes a  particular
\nitem  or  not.\t In  the  Hindi version\t the  word  used  is
\n‘Chamra’.   There  can be no dispute that the term  ‘Chamra’
\nwould  include ‘leather’ in all its forms.  In this view  of
\nthe  matter  the  Appeal   stands  dismissed.\tThere  will,
\nhowever, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 Author: S N Variava Bench: V.N.Khare, S.N.Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 11768 of 1996 PETITIONER: M\/S. PARK LEATHER INDUSTRY (P) LTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/02\/2001 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":5108,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001"},"wordCount":5108,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001","name":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T13:03:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-park-leather-industry-p-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Park Leather Industry (P) … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 14 February, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}