Distinct commodity treatment for tax purposes prevented extension of sales tax to paddy husk under the notification.

Paddy husk and rice husk were held to be distinct commodities for sales tax purposes under the relevant Uttar Pradesh trade tax notifications. In a fiscal statute, tax liability must arise from clear language, and any ambiguity in the charging notification is resolved in favour of the assessee under Article 265 of the Constitution. Because the notifications separately referred to rice husk and later to paddy husk, and nothing indicated that the earlier reference covered both, the levy could not be extended to paddy husk before its express inclusion.

---

---

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

Analysis: The notifications issued under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act expressly referred to rice husk and, later, separately to paddy husk. Paddy and rice are distinct commodities in ordinary commercial parlance, and dehusking each yields a different residual covering. In a fiscal statute, tax can be imposed only by clear language under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, and any ambiguity in the charging notification must be resolved in favour of the assessee. The separate mention of both expressions in the notifications and the absence of any clarificatory indication showed that paddy husk was not covered by the earlier reference to rice husk.

Conclusion: Paddy husk and rice husk are not the same commodity, and the tax levy could not be extended to paddy husk prior to its express inclusion.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing entries, distinct commodities are not to be treated as identical unless the statute or notification clearly so provides, and ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the assessee.

---