JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This revision is at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. In the memo of revision following two questions of law have been raised :
"Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified :
(1) To accept the account books of the dealer despite the fact that many discrepancies were detected during assessment proceedings and at the time of survey dated September 2, 1983 ?
(2) To hold that dalia is taxable at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains despite the fact that dalia is entirely a different commodity ?
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. During the course of argument learned Standing Counsel confined to the arguments to the question No. 2 only and did not seriously press question No. 1, it being question of fact.
4. Therefore the only question left for decision is whether "dalia" is taxable at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains or it is entirely a different commodity. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The dealer-opposite party is a registered dealer and carried on business of foodgrains, oil-seed, khal, and ata, etc. The assessing authority did not accept the contention of the dealer that dalia is "broken wheat" and is not ata, maida, suji. He levied the tax on dalia at the rate of 4 per cent treating self-manufactured dalia in the category of ata, maida, and suji. He treated "dalia" as an unclassified item by order dated September 30, 1987. In appeal the said portion of the order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax. The Tribunal in second appeal has held that "dalia" is broken foodgrains and is not liable to sales tax as it cannot be deemed to be different from unsplitted or unprocessed foodgrains on which the assessee has paid purchase tax. Challenging the aforesaid proposition, present revision has been filed. Notification No. 5787 dated September 7, 1981 is relevant notification, which was issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Serial No. 5 of the said notification reads as under :
"Foodgrains including cereals and pulses other than cereals and pulses as defined under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) ... rate of tax 4 per cent."
The aforesaid notification was issued under Section 3-D of the Act. Section 3-D of the Act has been subject to amendment from time to time. This section was inserted with effect from August 1, 1958 and was subsequently substituted by U.P. Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1964. By Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 Explanation II was added which reads as under :
"Explanation II.--For the purposes of this sub-section, split or processed foodgrains, such as in the form of dal, shall be deemed to be different from unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains, and accordingly, nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to prevent the imposition, levy or collection of the tax in respect of the first purchases of split or processed foodgrains merely because tax had been imposed, levied or collected earlier in respect of the first purchases of those foodgrains in their unsplit or unprocessed form."
A division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Badrimal Hiralal (Sales Tax Reference No. 353 of 1970 vide judgment dated May 20, 1971) interpreted the aforesaid Explanation II and held that the aforesaid Explanation is retrospective and dal is commercially a different commodity from whole dal. The aforesaid Explanation was given retrospective effect right from August 1, 1958, the day when Section 3-D was enacted.
5. Section 3-D was again amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1972. Section 3-D(1) was substituted. This Court in Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 25 STC 118 held that dehusking for breaking whole dal into pieces did not bring about different thing and, therefore, dealer purchasing splitted arhar dal from the dal mill was not liable to pay purchase tax under Section 3-D(1) of the Act. It appears that to clarify that splitted dal or processed dal foodgrains shall be deemed to be different from unsplitted or unprocessed foodgrains, Explanation II of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1970 was added which was given retrospective effect.
6. Section 3-D and the Explanation again suffered amendment in the year 1972 and thereafter in 1976. Finally, Explanation II relevant for the assessment year in question which provides that splitted or processed foodgrains, cereals or pulses shall be deemed to be different from unsplitted or unprocessed foodgrains, cereals or pulses is confined to the period for the purposes of assessment relating to any period commencing on October 1, 1964 and ending with November 14, 1971. Obviously the said Explanation II has no application to the period subsequent to November 14, 1971. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel on the case of Shiv Nath Rai Biyani v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2000 UPTC 52, has no application to the present case. In the aforesaid case assessment years involved were 1964-65, etc., up to the assessment year 1971-72. The controversy involved in the aforesaid case was decided in the light of Explanation II as stood from time to time. The said Explanation, to my mind, has no application, as in the present case the dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. Since Explanation II has no application for the subsequent period November 14, 1971, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 25 STC 118 will hold the field again. Dehusking and breaking whole dal into pieces as was held therein would not bring into existence of different commodity. "Dalia" is nothing but broken wheat. It is not a different commodity than foodgrain. It is true that dalia does not correspond to the specific entry and, therefore necessity for interpretation arises. The necessity for interpretation arises when a particular article does not correspond to the specific entry [See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. C.A. Glass Works [1995] 99 STC 308 (All.)]. A word which is not defined in the enactment has to be understood in its popular and commercial sense with reference to the context in which it occurred. Reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. . Keeping in view of the above principles relating to interpretation of entries in the notification of sales tax and statute, it is clear that in common parlance, dalia is treated as broken foodgrain and is not different commercial commodity. Dalia can be used for the same purpose as wheat. By grinding dalia flour ata can be manufactured out of it.
7. In the result there is no error of law in the order of the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal is wholly justified. There is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed.