Commercially distinct rice products may fall outside a specific tax entry and remain taxable under the general charging provision.

Parched rice and puffed rice were held commercially and functionally distinct from rice simpliciter, so they did not fall within entry 66 of Schedule I merely because they are derived from paddy. The exclusion from that specific entry did not create tax immunity, and the commodities remained liable under the general charging provision. The earlier exemption notification was validly withdrawn by a later statutory notification, supported by the power to revoke exemptions, and the challenge to the withdrawal failed. The result was that the assessees were not entitled to exemption or concessional treatment for those commodities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether parched rice and puffed rice are "rice" within entry 66 of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether tax could be levied on those commodities under the general charging provision and the withdrawal of exemption under the statutory notification was valid.

Issue (i): Whether parched rice and puffed rice are "rice" within entry 66 of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Entry 66 dealt only with rice. The two sub-items distinguished between rice not covered by the taxed paddy-linked category and rice obtained from paddy that had already borne tax. Parched rice and puffed rice, though produced from paddy, were found to be commercially and functionally different from rice simpliciter. They are prepared by different processes and are used differently from ordinary rice. A prior view treating parched rice as not the same as rice was followed. The Court also held that the legislature was entitled to treat these goods separately and that there was no unconstitutional discrimination in excluding them from entry 66.

Conclusion: Parched rice and puffed rice are not covered by entry 66 of Schedule I, and the assessee could not claim taxation only under entry 66(b).

Issue (ii): Whether tax could be levied on those commodities under the general charging provision and the withdrawal of exemption under the statutory notification was valid.

Analysis: Section 5(1) created a general power to levy tax on turnover above the prescribed limit, and exclusion from the schedules did not mean immunity from tax. The earlier exemption notification was validly withdrawn by a later statutory notification issued under section 9(1), and the power to revoke that exemption was supported by section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act. The notification did not amount to adding new items to the schedules, and section 40 was not attracted. The challenge based on want of authority and lack of legislative approval therefore failed.

Conclusion: The levy under section 5(1) was lawful, and the revocation of exemption was valid.

Final Conclusion: The assessees were not entitled to exemption or concessional treatment for parched rice and puffed rice, while the State's appeal succeeded and the contrary view was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity is commercially distinct from the item named in a taxing entry, it does not fall within that entry merely because it is derived from the same raw material, and in the absence of inclusion in a specific schedule entry it may be taxed under the general charging provision if no valid exemption subsists.

---