Paddy within "foodgrains" under sales tax law, with taxable goods validly specified by exclusion.

Paddy was treated as falling within the expression "foodgrains" in section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act because it is unhusked rice and a cereal commonly understood as a grain used for food. On that construction, the notification could validly attract purchase tax on paddy. The notification was also held to sufficiently specify the taxable foodgrains by excluding items not intended to be taxed, and it could validly rescind earlier notifications, including the exemption relating to paddy, as a composite exercise of the charging and general rescission power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether paddy falls within the expression "foodgrains" in section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 so as to attract purchase tax under the impugned notification. (ii) Whether the State Government had sufficiently specified the foodgrains liable to tax by the notification, and whether the notification validly rescinded earlier notifications relating to paddy and sales tax exemption.

Issue (i): Whether paddy falls within the expression "foodgrains" in section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 so as to attract purchase tax under the impugned notification.

Analysis: The expression "foodgrains" was construed as a comprehensive term covering grains used as food, including rice in its original or unhusked state. Paddy was treated as unhusked rice and as a cereal. The Court also noted that paddy had earlier been excluded from the foodgrains entry, which showed that it was regarded as falling within that genus. The commercial and agricultural understanding of paddy supported the same conclusion.

Conclusion: Paddy is a foodgrain for the purpose of section 3-D and is liable to purchase tax under the notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government had sufficiently specified the foodgrains liable to tax by the notification, and whether the notification validly rescinded earlier notifications relating to paddy and sales tax exemption.

Analysis: Specification under the charging provision could be made either by direct enumeration or by exclusion. The impugned notification identified the taxable foodgrains by excluding items not intended to be taxed, which was held to be adequate specification. The notification was also treated as composite, issued under section 3-D and section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, so it could validly rescind earlier notifications, including the exemption relating to paddy.

Conclusion: The notification validly specified the taxable goods and effectively rescinded the earlier notifications.

Final Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax on paddy was upheld, and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises taxation of "foodgrains", paddy can be included within that expression as unhusked rice, and specification of taxable goods may be made validly by exclusion through a composite notification issued under the charging provision and the general power to rescind notifications.

---