Judgment :- 1. Three question have been raised in this writ application. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1962-1963 by Ext. P. 5 order. By that order, he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 294.74 as tax due under S.11(2) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The assessment evidenced is a best judgment assessment and an addition of a turnover of Rs. 77,000 and odd (10 per cent of the turnover returned) was made by the Sales Tax Officer on the assumption that there has been suppressions of sales. Finally, the assessing authority rejected the contention of the petitioner that ghee is taxable at 2 per cent under S.3 (2) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, and not at 5 per cent under item 39 of Schedule I to the Act which relates to S.3 (1) (b) treating it as 'foodstuffs' sold in sealed containers. 2. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order. Ext. P. 5 in regard to the above three questions. The first of these has to be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Abdul Quader and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Hyderabad (AIR 1964 SC. 922). I do so. 3. The reasons mentioned by the respondent for the addition of 10 percent towards probable omissions were that on an inspection of the petitioner's shop, only 13 tins of oil were actually found as against the book stock of 14 tins. It is also said that the assessee had purchased rice from Messrs. T. S. Packiriswami Pillai & Co., for Rs. 2,000 and odd. On these two grounds a sum of Rs. 77,000 and odd has been added towards probable omissions.' I may mention that the said Packiriswami Pillai is himself a dealer and that if he had actually sold the rice to the petitioner, it is he, if at all, who should be liable to the sales tax and not the petitioner, for rice is taxable on the first purchase point. The purchase of the rice therefore has no relevancy in determining whether the turnover returned by the petitioner is correct or not. The only discrepancy that has therefore been found is about the number of oil tins. There is no material from which the exact price of a tin of oil is seen. The purchase of the rice therefore has no relevancy in determining whether the turnover returned by the petitioner is correct or not. The only discrepancy that has therefore been found is about the number of oil tins. There is no material from which the exact price of a tin of oil is seen. In any view of the matter, the addition of a turnover of Rs. 77,000/-and odd is quite arbitrary and capricious. I have had occasion to deal with this aspect at great length in the decision in M. Appukutty v. Sales-Tax Officer, Kozhikode (1965 KLT. 830). The addition of Rs. 77, 311/-is therefore unsustainable. I therefore direct that this sum will be deleted from the assessment order as well as the sum of Rs. 294.74 and that the tax payable by the petitioner will be recomputed. 4. The third point raised is not free from difficulty. So said Justice Fazl Ali in State of Bombay v. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah (AIR. 1952 SC, 355). His Lordship had to consider the question as to whether turmeric is "foodstuff" within the meaning of Clause.3 of the Spices (Forwad Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, read with S.2 (a) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1146). The learned judge said: "The question whether turmeric is 'foodstuff' is not entirely free from difficulty." and the other learned judge, Justice Bose observed: "So far as "food" is concerned, it can be used in a wide as well as a narrow sense and, in my opinion, much must depend upon the context and background. Even in a popular sense, when one asks another, 'Have you had your food?', one means the composite preparations which normally go to constitute a meal curry and rice, sweetmeats, pudding, cooked vegetables and so forth. One does not usually think separately of the different preparations which enter into their making, of the various condiments and spices and vitamins, any more than one would think of separating in his mind the purely nutritive elements of what is eaten from the it non-nutritive adjuncts." I may also quote the following from Justice Fazl Ali's judgment. One does not usually think separately of the different preparations which enter into their making, of the various condiments and spices and vitamins, any more than one would think of separating in his mind the purely nutritive elements of what is eaten from the it non-nutritive adjuncts." I may also quote the following from Justice Fazl Ali's judgment. "In one sense, everything which enters into the composition of food so as to make it palatable may be described as 'foodstuff', but that word is commonly used with reference only to those articles which are eaten for their nutritive value and which from the principal ingredients of cooked or uncooked meal such as wheat, rice, meat, fish, milk, bread, butter, etc." The Government Pleader Sri. Raman appearing on behalf of the Revenue has brought to my notice the meaning attributed to the term'ghee' in the New Standard Dictionary which reads thus: "In India ghee is one of the commonest articles of diet, and indeed enters into the composition of everything eaten by the Brahmins." I do not know whether ghee should be confined as an article of diet for the Brahmins. It appears to me that it is very similar to butter which incidentally has been treated by Justice Fazl Ali as 'foodstuff'. 5. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to entries 52 and 53 of Schedule I to the General Sales Tax Act which read as follows: "Item 52, Confectionery (tinned, packed or otherwise). Item 53. Biscuits and cake (packed, tinned or otherwise)" and said that the levy of tax at 5 per cent on the turnover relating to ghee under item 39 of Schedule I to the Act is without jurisdiction. He also urged that the said item deals only with "Foodstuffs sold in sealed containers". It does not appeal to me to be possible from these entries to come to any conclusion as to what is meant by 'foodstuffs' in the term "foodstuffs sold in sealed containers". Biscuits and cakes and confectionery having been specifically provided by items 52 and 53 will naturally be governed by those items. It does not appeal to me to be possible from these entries to come to any conclusion as to what is meant by 'foodstuffs' in the term "foodstuffs sold in sealed containers". Biscuits and cakes and confectionery having been specifically provided by items 52 and 53 will naturally be governed by those items. But from this it is not possible to define the ambit and scope of foodstuffs appearing in item 39 and limit it further by holding that it will apply only to such articles which are eaten for their nutritive value and which form the principal ingredients of cooked and uncooked meals. Ghee must be understood as one of the commonest articles of diet. 6. Before concluding, I may also refer to Roland Burrow's Words and Phrases Judicially Defined, Volume II. "We do not, however, in anything we have said intended to convey it as our opinion that nothing can be deemed to be an article of food unless it be made up into an eatable or drinkable form and fit for immediate use, for we have no 'doubt that the substantial and requisite materials for making, and which are to form part of the unadulterated article when made e. g. flour, butter, salt, mustard, pepper, etc. are articles of food;". 7. In the light of the above, I am not prepared to say that there is any patent error in the order Ext. P. 5 entitling this Court to interfere and quash it. 8. I there fore direct that Ext. P. 5 will be modified by recomputing the tax in the manner indicated above. 9. This writ application is ordered as above. There will be no order as to costs.