Common parlance test for tax exemption: maida-based product was not kachri and remained taxable as namkeen.

An exemption for "kachri" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was construed in its common and trade parlance sense because neither the Act nor the notification defined the term. The product made from maida was not shown to be understood as kachri in ordinary commerce; evidence indicated that kachri is ordinarily a rice-based preparation. The dealer's own descriptions in vouchers and registration records, and the fact that the product was fried in oil, were insufficient to establish exemption. The burden of proving entitlement to the exemption remained on the dealer, and that burden was not discharged, so the product was treated as namkeen and taxed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the commodity manufactured from maida and sold as kachri was covered by the exemption notification for kachri under section 4(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The notification exempted kachri, but the term was not defined in the Act or the notification. The proper approach was to construe the expression in its common and trade parlance meaning. The material on record showed that kachri is ordinarily understood as a preparation of rice. The fact that the product was fried in oil or described by the dealer as kachri or kachri namkeen did not establish that it was kachri in common parlance. Self-serving descriptions in vouchers and registration documents were irrelevant to the exemption claim. The burden to prove entitlement to the exemption lay on the dealer, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The maida-based product was not kachri and was not entitled to exemption under the notification; it was rightly taxed as namkeen.

---