Strict construction of taxing entries keeps paddy husk distinct from rice husk until specific inclusion in notification.

Paddy husk and rice husk are distinct commodities for trade tax purposes, because taxing entries must be construed strictly and ambiguous fiscal language is resolved in favour of the assessee. The notification structure showed separate treatment of rice husk and the later express inclusion of paddy husk, with no clarificatory amendment treating the terms as synonymous. The distinction between paddy and rice was also recognised, including the effect of dehusking on the identity of the goods. On that basis, paddy husk could not be taxed before its specific inclusion in the notification dated 6 June 1996.

---

---

Issues: Whether paddy husk and rice husk are the same commodity for purposes of levy of trade tax, and whether paddy husk was liable to tax only after its specific inclusion in the notification dated 6 June 1996.

Analysis: The levy arose under section 3D of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act pursuant to notifications fixing the rate and point of tax. Earlier notifications referred to rice polish, rice bran and rice husk, while the notification dated 6 June 1996 expressly added paddy husk and retained rice husk separately. The expressions were used distinctly, and no clarificatory amendment or explanation was issued to treat them as synonyms. The Court applied the principle that a taxing entry must be construed strictly and that any ambiguity in a fiscal entry must go to the assessee. It also relied on the settled position that paddy and rice are distinct commodities and that dehusking changes the identity of the goods. On that basis, paddy husk could not be equated with rice husk.

Conclusion: Paddy husk and rice husk are not the same commodity. Tax on paddy husk could not be levied before its specific inclusion, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing notification, distinct expressions must be given distinct meanings, and where two commodities are separately named, one cannot be treated as a synonym of the other unless the statute clearly so provides; any ambiguity in a fiscal entry must be resolved in favour of the assessee.

---