JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. The question of law referred for our opinion is whether chirwa and kheel were different forms of rice taxable at the same rate as rice or not. The Sales Tax Officer brought to tax the assessee’s turnover in chirwa and kheel, etc., at 2 per cent treating them to be unclassified items. On appeal, the assessee’s contention that chirwa and kheel were foodgrains and hence should have been taxed at 1½ per cent was accepted. This was upheld in revision.
2. The relevant entry for which sales tax was chargeable at 1½ per cent read “foodgrains including cereals and pulses but excluding…paddy”. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the revenue is that chirwa and kheel were products of paddy. This seems to be contrary to the stance taken by the department before the authorities below where it was argued that chirwa and kheel were by-products of rice. This technicality apart, rice is produced from paddy. It is produced after husking paddy. Chirwa and kheel are made from rice. Chirwa is beaten rice while kheel is parched rice. They have no direct connection with paddy. Paddy has first to become rice before chirwa and kheel can come into existence. In our opinion, chirwa and kheel are only different forms of rice. They are not a commodity which will fall outside the purview of cereals as understood in common parlance. Looked at from either view, the turnover of chirwa and kheel was rightly held taxable at 1½ per cent. It could not be taxed under the unclassified items. In Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1978) XX Supreme Court Notes 56, the Supreme Court has held that the term “rice” is wide enough to include parched and puffed rice. They overruled the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
3. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.