Raghuvir, C. J. — This Court on March 3, 1976 directed the Assam Board of Revenue to refer the following questions of law. Accordingly the Board referred the questions for opinion of this Court. QUESTIONS :- (1) Whether 'cotton' as described in item 8 of Schedule III to the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 includes 'cotton waste' and is exempted from taxation under the Act ? (2) Whether "cotton yarn” as described in item 43 of Schedule III to the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 includes cotton yarn waste' and is exempted from taxation under the Act ? (3) Weather on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 can be applied to re-open the completed assessment . The Assam Board or Revenue considered the subject matter in the three questions in Case Nos. 29 STA/70 to 38 STA/70 on March II, 1970 and held that cotton waste is different from cotton and cotton yarn waste is different from cotton yarn. The Board stated to have followed the earlier decision. The judgment of the Board on March 11, 1970 is not made available in the record. The counsel for the parties have not produced the judgment before this Court. Section 7 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947) reads as under: "7. EXEMPTIONS. — (1) Subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in Schedule III attached to this Act. the sales of goods specified therein shall be exempt from taxation under this Act. (2) The State Government, after giving in the official Gazette such previous notice as may be considered reasonable of its intention so to do, may, by like notification, add to, amend or otherwise modify, the said schedule and thereupon the said Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly." In Schedule III Item Nos. s and 43 the words are "cotton" and "Mill-made cotton yarn (excluding sewing thread)". The words "cotton yarn” (in item No 8) are substituted for the word cotton from November 1, 1956 by notification on October 20, 1956. Item 43 is inserted by the same notification from the same date. s and 43 the words are "cotton" and "Mill-made cotton yarn (excluding sewing thread)". The words "cotton yarn” (in item No 8) are substituted for the word cotton from November 1, 1956 by notification on October 20, 1956. Item 43 is inserted by the same notification from the same date. We see in the Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition) 'cotton' is described as under-"A term which is applicable to such substance in whatever state it exists after it has been gathered and before it is manufactured into some article of merchandise whether the seed have been removed at the gin or whether it is lint cotton in the seed or in the bale, Freeman vs. State, 156 Ark, 592. 247 S. W. 51". The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the revenue argued that in commercial world or commercial circles cotton waste and cotton yarn waste are specified goods and are identified by the name therefore he contended cotton yarn was is different from cotton yarn and cotton waste is different from cotton. These two goods, the counsel urged can be sold, can be purchased in the markets. Therefore, his argument was cotton waste is a separate commodity from cotton and similarly cotton yarn waste is a separate commodity from cotton yarn and cited two decisions-1988 (1) GLJ-NOC 25 (M/S. Modern Candle Works vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Gauhati) and 20 Sales Tax Cases page 730 (Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana). The question in the instant references is not whether there can be a business in cotton waste or in cotton yarn waste whether the two commodities can be sold and purchased. The precise question in these references is far different and to repeat the issue is whether cotton waste is cotton and is cotton yarn waste is cotton yarn. We see there is elaborate discussion in 58 Sales Tax Cases 23 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Ganga Dal Mill & Co) in that a judgment of the Allahabad High Court 1980 All LJ 1137 (Modi Spinning and Weaving IV ills Co Ltd., Modinagar vs. State of U. P) is referred. The word cotton was considered with reference to cotton ginned and cotton unginned. In the Allahabad decision question arose with reference to chargeability of market fee. The Court in that case held cotton ginned and cotton unginned is an agricultural product. The word cotton was considered with reference to cotton ginned and cotton unginned. In the Allahabad decision question arose with reference to chargeability of market fee. The Court in that case held cotton ginned and cotton unginned is an agricultural product. Cotton waste is a processed form of cotton and cotton was defined in the relevant Act to cover manufactured cotton, ginned and unginned cotton, cotton waste and cotton seed and after referring to the definitions, the Court held cotton ginned and cotton unginned is different from cotton waste, The Supreme Court did not approve that decision in 58 Sales Tax Cases 23 and observed cotton waste is not the processed form of cotton containing cotton fiber which cannot be used as ordinary cotton. The Supreme Court held cotton waste is a droppings, stripping an 1 other waste product while ginning cotton. Further added cotton waste is not by-product but it is a residue of ginned cotton. We have referred to this decision to understand the ramification of the two expressions cotton and cotton waste. We see in the case of 41 Sales Tax Cases page 394 (Alladi Venkateswarlu vs. Govt. A. P.) various tests have been laid by the Supreme Court in identifying the commodities. The question is that case related to paddy, rice, parched rice and puffed rice and how to identify the four commodities. The first test the Supreme Court laid down (a) unless the language of the taxing statute was absolutely clear obviously unfair interpretation against the assessee should not be adopted by the Courts, (b) when two interpretations of the provision are possible adopt the •principle which favours tne assessee, (c) in interpreting a word the history of the legislation should be taken into consideration, (d) the commonsense rule of interpretation as expounded by the Supreme Court in 1960 11 S T.C 827 (lungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnoon) should be adopted, (e) Finally, it was held the word should be interpreted as understood in the English Language if the legislation is in English. What is stated in principle (a) above is slightly different from what has been laid down by the English Courts in (1921) 1 K. B. P. 64 (Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners) wherein it has been held one has to look merely what is clearly said. What is stated in principle (a) above is slightly different from what has been laid down by the English Courts in (1921) 1 K. B. P. 64 (Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners) wherein it has been held one has to look merely what is clearly said. There is no reason for my intendraent, there is no equity about tax, there is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, and nothing is to be implied One can only look fairly at the language used. As to the scope of second test recently the Supreme Court has reviewed the cases in AIR 1986 SC 649 (M/S McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer) and categories the fashionable topic of tax avoidance and referred the art of dodging tax. The principle laid down in (1942) 1 KB 389 (Lord Howard De Walden vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner) was dilated. The magic performance by lawyer turned magicians and that has been laid down in 1936 AC page 1 (Inland Revenue Commissioner ts. Duke of Westminster) as cardinal principle were expounded. The article relating to 18 Modern Law Review 209 was referred. The tax-avoider and his expert team of advisers were described as warring groups. Again in (1941) AC 1 it is held the ghost of tax dodgers in that case were exorcised. These principles have been replayed after the decision of AIR 1986 SC 649 once again but we are not informed of the result of the replay of those principles. For the purpose of these references we adopt what is referred to as commonsense rule of interpretation or as understood in English languag", we hold the common man understands cotton waste is covered by cotton and cotton yarn waste is covered by the words cotton yarn. The first and the second questions for the aforesaid reasons are answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The learned counsel for the assessees has stated third question was referred to this Court by way of abundant caution and is not pressed for the answer. Therefore, no answer is recorded for that question. No costs. Phukan, J. — I agree.