Paddy husk and rice husk are distinct commodities, so purchase tax on rice husk did not apply to the dealer's purchase.

Paddy husk and rice husk are different commodities for purchase tax purposes, because paddy husk is the outer dry covering obtained on de-husking paddy, while rice husk arises from later rice processing and contains the oil element noted in the text. As the notification taxed rice husk, the Tribunal correctly treated the dealer's purchase as paddy husk, an unclassified item not liable to tax on first purchase. Earlier case law cited by the revisionist did not establish that the two materials are identical, so the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether paddy husk and rice husk are the same commodity for the purpose of levy of purchase tax under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the correct identification of the commodity purchased by the dealer. The Tribunal had found that the material was paddy husk and not rice husk, and therefore an unclassified item not liable to tax on first purchase. The revisionist relied on earlier case law, but that authority did not hold that paddy husk and rice husk are identical commodities. The applicable notification levied tax on rice husk, and the record showed that paddy husk is the outer dry covering obtained when paddy is de-hulled, whereas rice husk is associated with the later processing of rice and contains the oil element referred to in the judgment.

Conclusion: Paddy husk and rice husk are different commodities, and the Tribunal committed no error in treating the purchase as paddy husk and not taxable rice husk. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

---