JUDGMENT 1. This is a case stated under Sec. 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as he Act. The question referred is : "Whether powerloom would fall under the term cloth manufactured by mills mentioned at Sl. 2, of List I of Part I of the Schedule issued under Not. No. ST-117/X-923-1948, dated June 8, 1948." 2. The relevant year of assessment is 1950-51. The dealer manufactures cloth on power looms and also imports cloth. The dealer claimed that the cloth manufactured on power looms did not fall within Serial No. 2 of the notification No. ST-117'X-923-1948, dated June 8, 1948, issued under the powers conferred under Sec. 3-A of the Act. The relevant portion of this notification reads: - "........ proceeds of sale of goods entered in column 2 of the schedule hereto shall not be included in the turnover of any dealer except at the point in the series of sales by successive dealers mentioned in column 4 thereof under the circumstances shown in column 2 thereof..........." Sl. No. Name of goods Circumstances under which to be included in turnover. Point of tax. Rate of tax per rupee. 2. Cloth manufactured by mills. If imported from outside U.P. Sale by importer Sale by manufacturer. Six pies. 3. In other words the claim of the dealer was that the cloth manufactured on powerlooms was not the "cloth manufactured by mills," and, therefore, it was not liable to sales tax at the rate of six pies per rupee but at the general rate of sales tax which is three pies per rupee. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim and assessed the dealer who was the manufacturer of powerloom cloth at six pies per rupee. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, however, accepted the claim of the dealer and was of the view that power loom cloth did not fall within the category of mill made cloth, and, therefore, remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer with the direction that the turnover of powerloom cloth should be determined and taxed at 3 pies per rupee. Aggrieved by this order the Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. filed a revision contending that the power loom cloth was taxable at 6 pies per rupee at single point as mill made-cloth. Aggrieved by this order the Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. filed a revision contending that the power loom cloth was taxable at 6 pies per rupee at single point as mill made-cloth. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax following a decision of the Madras High Court in Dhandapani Power Loom Factory v. The Commercial Tax Officer, (1961) 12 S.T.C. 304 held that a powerloom factory is not a mill and power loom cloth is generally not associated with mill cloth. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 4. Neither the U.P. Sales Tax Act nor the said notification in any way define what a "mill" is or what is the meaning to be attributed to the words "cloth manufactured by mills". In these circumstances, following the general rule of interpretation, these words must be considered according to the common understanding of mankind. It would, therefore, be legitimate to turn to the dictionary meaning of the word "mill". In Webster's New International Dictionary, Volume 2 the meaning of "mill", inter alia is : "a building or collection of building with machinery by which the processes of manufacturing are carried on; as a cotton mill; powermill; a rolling mill". Therefore, according to the dectionary two things are required, (1) a building, and (2) a machinery, in order to constitute a "mill". When we turn to the meaning of "machine" in the dectionary. inter alia, it is stated : ". . . .Popularity and in the wider mechanical sense a machine is more or less complex combination of mechanical parts, as levers, gears, sprocket wheels, pulleys, shafts and spindles, ropes, chains, and hands, cams and other turning and sliding pieces, springs, confined fluids etc. together with the frame work and fastenings, supporting and connecting them, as when it is designed to operate upon material to change it in some pre-conceived and definite manner. . . . ." Looms which are merely worked by power would hardly satisfy the aforesaid dictionary meaning of a machine. In any event, there is no material on the record to show that looms worked by hand or looms worked by power are in any way different. It was for the Department to have placed evidence on the record to show that looms worked by power are machines as distinguished from looms worked by manual labour. In any event, there is no material on the record to show that looms worked by hand or looms worked by power are in any way different. It was for the Department to have placed evidence on the record to show that looms worked by power are machines as distinguished from looms worked by manual labour. If a loom worked by hand, though placed in a building, does not become a mill, there is no reason why merely because the same loom is worked by power it should qualify as a "mill". What is required, as quoted above, is some kind of complex combination of mechanical parts in order to qualify as a machine. The mere application of power by means of steam, electricity, oil or anything else cannot be the test to be applied. This view is supported by a statement to be found in words and phrases, permanent Edition, Vol. 27, which reads: "the term "mill" in modern usage, includes various machines or combinations of machinery, as cotton mills, fulling mills, power mills, etc..............The word mill has two definitions, a primary and secondly (1) a complicated engine or machine for grinding and reducing to fine particles...............(2) the house or building that contains the machinery for grinding." A loom, whether worked by hand or power, in itself is not at all a complicated engine or machine. The common man would find it extremely difficult to think of cloth made on powerlooms as mill made cloth. Cloth is divided into two broad categories, mill made and hand loom cloth. In the latter category is included all cloth manufactured onlooms by manual labour whether such looms are worked by power, or the hands and feet of the worker. In the former, the actual process of weaving is more or less automatic, pre-conceived and definite, whereas in the latter the actual weaving is still the result of manual labour. The view we are taking finds some support from the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Dhandapani Power Loom Factory v. The Commercial Tax Officer, (1965) 16 S.T.C. 864 . 5. The learned Junior Standing Counsel, however, relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Lakshmi Power Loom Industrial Co-operative Society v. The State of Kerala, (1965) 16 S. T. C. 864 where the said Madras decision was distinguished. 5. The learned Junior Standing Counsel, however, relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Lakshmi Power Loom Industrial Co-operative Society v. The State of Kerala, (1965) 16 S. T. C. 864 where the said Madras decision was distinguished. That case concerned itself with the interpretation of an exemption contained in Sec. 5-A of the (Kerala) General Sales Tax Act which exempted "tax on the sale of mill made textiles". The view taken was that if cloth is made on a power loom it will be "mill -made textile" and, therefore, entitled to exemption from tax. There, because cloth was manufactured on powerlooms and looms were housed in a factory, it was held to be mill made textile. With great respect we find ourselves unable to agree with this view. It was assumed that a loom was a factory and it qualified as a mill. What is required is machine of a complex nature and not merely any machine. A sewing machine, air conditioner or refrigerator may all be machines but when kept in a building it does not become a mill. In any event the best that can be said for the Department is that the word "mill" is used in the impugned notification is ambiguous. If the intention of the notification had been, as contended by the department, to bring into the net of taxation at the higher rate every kind of cloth other than cloth made on handloom than the simplest thing would have been to say all cloth manufactured by the use of power, instead of "cloth manufactured by mills". Therefore the cannon of construction of a fiscal statute, which requires that when words are ambiguous they should be construed in favour of the tax payer, will have to be invoked and, doing so there is no escape from the conclusion that cloth made on powerlooms is not cloth manufactured by mills. 6. For the reasons given above, we would answer the question referred in the negative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs as no one has appeared for the dealer.