MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) ). A short question arises for resolution in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is with reference to the Sales Tax exemption in connection with Dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner-Industry. The petitioner contends that as per the exemption Notification Annexure A/2, entry 118, the petitioner-Industry is entitled to the said exemption while the revenue contends that the petitioner-Industry is covered by exceptional clause and is listed as one of the industries which will not earn the said exemption as it is a spice mill. Consequently the moot question which will decide the fate of this petition is whether Dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is a spice. A few relevant facts leading to this controversy may now be noted. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and it is also registered under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The business of the petitioner is to manufacture Dhana-Dal out of Dhana. According to the petitioner the said Dal is used not in or as any diet but is used as "mukhvas", mouth freshner, in a very small quantity. The said Dal is taken in very small quantity by consumers after having the taken meals. The petitioner-Industry, which is situate in Jamnagar District at village Dhrol, was earlier granted eligibility certificate by the Industries Commissioner on 2-1-1984 effective from 30- 6-1983 entitling the petitioner to exemption from payment of Sales Tax upto the limit of Rs. 1,52,170. 00 as contemplated under Entry 118 of the Government notification dated 5-2-1981 issued in pursuance of the powers vested in the state Government under Sec. 49 (2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. On the basis of the said eligibility certificate the respondent No. 3, Assistant commissioner of Sales Tax granted to the petitioner exemption certificate on 7-1-1984 effective from 30-6-1983 entitling the petitioner to claim Sales tax exemption upto the limit of Rs. 1,52,170. 00 as contemplated by the aforesaid Entry No. 118 of Government Notification. On the basis of the said eligibility certificate the respondent No. 3, Assistant commissioner of Sales Tax granted to the petitioner exemption certificate on 7-1-1984 effective from 30-6-1983 entitling the petitioner to claim Sales tax exemption upto the limit of Rs. 1,52,170. 00 as contemplated by the aforesaid Entry No. 118 of Government Notification. It appears that thereafter the concerned respondent had second thought and it was felt that the Dhana- dal manufactured by the petitioner was in the nature of spice and therefore the petitioner-Industry can be termed as an industry running spice mill and hence such an industry being excluded from the network of exemption notification, the eligibility certificate granted earlier on 2-1-1984 to the petitioner by Industries Commissioner was cancelled by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 25-6-1984. As a corollary to the aforesaid cancellation of eligibility certificate, exemption certificate was also cancelled by respondent no. 3 by order dated 26-9-1984 with retrospective effect from 30-6-1983. Order of respondent No. 1 dated 25-6-1984 is at Annexure A/3 to the petition while the order of respondent No. 3 dated 26-9-1984 is at Annexure A/ 4 to the petition. Both these orders are challenged on the ground that they are based on total misconception about the real scope and ambit of the exemption Notification Annexure A/2 Entry 118 especially the exemption clause thereof pertaining to entry spice mill. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that dhana-Dal which is manufactured by the petitioner cannot be called spice nor can petitioner-Industry be bracketed as spice mill. He submitted that spice mill would be such an industry which manufactures items which go as components of cooking material for giving flavour and taste to the food stuffs and eatables prepared in consumers kitchens; that the dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is an item of "mukhvas" - mouth freshner which is taken in small quantity after meals and therefore in common parlance such a product manufactured by the petitioner cannot in any view point be treated as a spice item making the petitioner-Industry a spice industry. ( 3 ) ). ( 3 ) ). Learned A. G. P. appearing for the respondents on the other hand vehemently submitted that as observed by the respondent No. 1 in his impugned order at Annexure A/3, the petitioner-Industry is manufacturing dhana-Dal which can be considered to be an industry grinding the spices and therefore the eligibility certificate is rightly cancelled by respondent No. 1 as per order dated 25-6-1986 and as a consequence the respondent No. 3 has also justifiably passed by impugned order at Annexure A/4 cancelling the exemption certificate. As the exemption certificate was given with effect from 30-6-1983, it had to be cancelled retrospectively from that date as it was based on a patent error. ( 4 ) ). We have considered the aforesaid rival contentions and have reached the conclusion that the grievance made by the petitioner against the impugned orders is well justified. The reasons are obvious. When we turn to Entry No. 118 in the Government Resolution, Annexure A/2, we find that only certain industries, which are mentioned in the table, are excluded from the beneficial operation of the Government Notification. It is not in dispute between the parties that if this industry does not fall in any of the excluded categories, it will be entitled to the benefit of the main provisions of Entry 118 in the Government Notification at Annexure A/2. The table listing the excluded industries mentioned at item no. 3 spice mills. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Dhana-Dal by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be a spice. In this connection he invited our attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Netai Mohan Saha v. State of West Bengal (52 STC 329 ). In that case a learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court (T. K. Basu, J.) was concerned with the question whether entry tax could be levied on turmeric, black and white pepper, etc. treating them as spices. Considering the connotation of the term spices as used for fiscal statute, the learned Judge observed that by its dictionary meaning and by the meaning in which the common man understands it, "spices are nothing but an ingredient which adds flavour to food". treating them as spices. Considering the connotation of the term spices as used for fiscal statute, the learned Judge observed that by its dictionary meaning and by the meaning in which the common man understands it, "spices are nothing but an ingredient which adds flavour to food". The learned Judge also referred to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1213 wherein it has given the meaning of the word "spice" as "aromatic or pungent vegetable substances used to flavour food". IN other dictionaries, it was observed that "spice" means "various strongly flavoured or aromatic substance of vegetable origin, obtained from tropical plant commonly used in condiments, etc". The word "condiment" means "anything of pronounced flavour used as a relish or to stimulate the appetite". According to the Childrens Dictionary "spice" means "a vegetable preparation used to flavour food". ( 5 ) ). In our view the aforesaid test evloved by the learned Judge is quite justified and it correctly reflects the meaning of the term "spice" in common parlance. It is now well settled that while considering the scope and ambit of entries in a fiscal statute imposing the network of tax common parlance test would be the most apposite. What a common man understands about the meaning of the term and how in commercial world the item is understood would decide the coverage of the sweep of such concerned terminology. ( 6 ) ). In the Notification Annexure A/2 the table pertaining to excluded industries does mention spice mill. Giving the common parlance meaning to the term spice as laid down by aforesaid Calcutta decision with which we concur, it becomes obvious that the item manufactured by the petitioner could be treated as a spice and the petitioners activity will be treated as that of spice mill only when it is shown that the Dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is used as an item for flavouring food. It is obvious that this test could not be answered by the petitioners Industry. Dhana-Dal is never used as an ingredient for flavouring food. On the contrary it is used as a mouth freshner after the meals are taken and food is consumed. Thus, it flavours the mouth rather than the food. Consequently in the commercial world Dhana-Dal would never be treated as a spice. Dhana-Dal is never used as an ingredient for flavouring food. On the contrary it is used as a mouth freshner after the meals are taken and food is consumed. Thus, it flavours the mouth rather than the food. Consequently in the commercial world Dhana-Dal would never be treated as a spice. It is used as mouth freshner singly by itself or along with and being added to betel leaves or pan after the meals. Consequently it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Dhana-Dal manufactured at petitioners factory would make the petitioner-Industry a "spice mill", within the meaning of Item No. of table excluding the listed industries from the beneficial operation of the exemption Notification, Annexure A/2. It may be noted that even in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in opposition to the petitioner, the only stand taken for meeting the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is manufacturing Dhana-Dal and it consists of grinding dhana and that the resultant product is extensively being used as flavouring agent for food. But nothing could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Revenue as to how Dhana-Dal can ever be used as a flavouring agent for food. It cannot be disputed that Dhana-Dal cannot be used in preparation of food stuff but it is used only along with betel leaves or independently as "mukhwas" or mouth freshner after the meals. Consequently the very basis of impugned order Annexure A/3 cancelling the eligibility certificate is found to be unsustainable and hence the order at Annexure A/ 3 must be treated to be patently erroneous. Consequently the order at annexure A/4 will suffer from the same infirmity from which the order at Annexure A/3 suffers. For all these reasons this petition is allowed. Annexure A/3 and A/4 are quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner is manufacturing Dhana-Dal which is an item of mouth freshner or "mukhwas" and it is not a spice and therefore the petitioner-Industry is not a spice millas contemplated by Item 3 of the table at Annexure A/2. Consequently, dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is entitled to eligibility certificate and exemption from Sales Tax as earlier granted to the petitioner. Consequently, dhana-Dal manufactured by the petitioner is entitled to eligibility certificate and exemption from Sales Tax as earlier granted to the petitioner. The respondents are permanently restrained from recovering any amount by way of withdrawal of exemption which was obtained earlier by the petitioner under annexure A/2 in terms of eligibility certificate and exemption certificate issued by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. Accordingly Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. .