S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the act" ). He trades in various agricultural produce including cereals such as ragi and its product ragi flour. For the assessment year 1993-94 ragi flour has been subjected to tax at the rate of 8 per cent and the turnover thereof is also subjected to turnover tax at the rate 1. 25 per cent. ( 2 ) IN the normal course when the petitioner is questioning an order of assessment, this Court would have relegated the parties to avail of the remedies as provided under the statute. However, in this case a clarification has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the effect that ragi flour is taxable under section 5 (1) of the Act and consequently the turnover tax is also attracted. The relevant portion of the clarification reads as follows : "ragi flour Clr. Cr. 841/89-90 dated March 16, 1990 :- while ragi is exempt under entry 40a of the Fifth Schedule, ragi flour cannot be regarded as exempt, since in the market ragi flour and ragi are regarded as two different commercial commodities, much in the manner of wheat and wheat flour. Since ragi flour is not listed in any of the Schedules, it would have to be taxed under section 5 (1) and for the same reason, turnover tax would also be applicable. " The view taken therein apparently is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 91 STC 408, wherein while explaining wheat, which is a declared goods it was held that it would not include flour, maida and suji derived from wheat. ( 3 ) UNDER section 8 of the Act exemptions are provided and goods mentioned in the Fifth schedule are exempt from payment of tax subject to the conditions mentioned therein. ( 4 ) FOR the relevant period entry 40a of the Fifth Schedule reads as follows : "40a. Ragi, jowar or milo, maize, paddy, bajra, navane, same, kodan and kutk. ( 4 ) FOR the relevant period entry 40a of the Fifth Schedule reads as follows : "40a. Ragi, jowar or milo, maize, paddy, bajra, navane, same, kodan and kutk. " ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the decision in Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 41 STC 394, wherein the question was whether rice when it is converted into parched rice and puffed rice, ceased to be rice. It is noticed therein that they were rice of different form by heating or parching and even if the expression "rice" is confined to grain it must be held that it is rice. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the decision in Rajasthan Roller Flour mills AIR1994 SC 64 , JT1993 (5 )SC 138 , 1993 (3 )SCALE600 , 1994 supp (1 )SCC413 , [1993 ]supp2 SCR72 , [1993 ]91 STC408 (SC ) turned on the interpretation to be placed on sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and in the present case that situation would not arise as what this Court has to interpret is the expression "ragi" as used in entry 40a coming under the Fifth Schedule. It is also pointed out that in Rajasthan Roller Flour mills' case [1993] 91 STC 408 the Supreme Court was concerned in interpreting the effect of wheat as having been put in Schedule IV of the Act, which are declared goods and wheat flour and wheat are both subjected to tax at single point under Schedule II of the Act. It is submitted that ragi is not subjected to tax at all since it is put in the Fifth Schedule, which is exempt from taxation and there is no other entry relating to ragi flour. When goods are non-Schedule items then section 5 (1) would be attracted subject to multi-point levy of tax. It is also pointed out that section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act would exempt from payment of tax goods which are exempt from taxation under the State Act. The learned counsel therefore urged that the scheme of taxation so far as wheat and wheat flour are concerned is entirely different and ragi is not subjected to tax at all. The learned counsel therefore urged that the scheme of taxation so far as wheat and wheat flour are concerned is entirely different and ragi is not subjected to tax at all. When ragi is not subjected to tax, ragi in any form cannot be subjected to tax and ragi flour is another form of ragi because ragi is not edible and urges that the same position as obtained in Alladi Venkateswarlu's case AIR1978 SC 945 , (1978 )2 SCC552 , [1978 ]3 SCR190 , [1978 ]41 STC394 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ212 (SC ) is applicable to the present case and implores upon me to apply the ratio of that case to this case. ( 7 ) IN refuting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner Sri Nazeer, learned Government pleader strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills' case [1993] 91 STC 408 and contended that although the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was one as to the meaning of the expression "wheat' in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the process of reasoning adopted by their Lordships would indicate that wheat and wheat flour are two different commodities and in applying the reasoning adopted in Sate of Karnataka v. Raghurama Shetty [1981] 47 STC 369 the Supreme Court applied the economic concept of consumption of one goods when another goods has emerged from it and new goods so emerged have a higher utility than the commodity consumed and they are different goods in a commercial sense. Thus, it is stated that the principles set out in Rajasthan Roller flour Mills' case AIR1994 SC 64 , JT1993 (5 )SC 138 , 1993 (3 )SCALE600 , 1994 Supp (1 )SCC413 , [1993 ]supp2 SCR72 , [1993 ]91 STC408 (SC ) must be applied to the facts of the present case. It is also contended that the decision in Alladi venkateswarlu's case AIR1978 SC 945 , (1978 )2 SCC552 , [1978 ]3 scr190 , [1978 ]41 STC394 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ212 (SC ) turned upon the peculiar entries available in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and therefore the principles stated therein should not be made applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) IN order to understand correctly the process of enumeration of goods for purposes of taxation in any enactment I must refer to the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra AIR1976 SC 800 , 1983 (13 )ELT1582 (SC ), (1976 )1 SCC834 , [1976 ]3 SCR168 , [1976 ]37 STC319 (SC ). In that decision it is stated that in the context of single point sales tax, subject to special conditions when imposed on separate categories of specified goods, the expression used therein exhaustively enumerating the kinds of goods on a give list. It is pointed out therein that the purpose of an enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point in a series of sales would mean to indicate the types of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for a series of sales, otherwise listing itself would lose all meaning and would be without any purpose behind it. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, ragi is mentioned in entry 40a of the Fifty Schedule to the Act along with certain other cereals. It is an item on which tax is not payable under the Act. There is no other entry in the Act which refers to ragi or ragi flour. In an exactly identical situation in Alladi venkateswarlu's case AIR1978 SC 945 , (1978 )2 SCC552 , [1978 ]3 scr190 , [1978 ]41 STC394 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ212 (SC ) wherein rice along had been mentioned as subject to single point levy tax and parched rice or puffed rice are not mentioned in any of the Schedules of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act it was held after noticing that under the scheme of that Act goods not falling in any of the Schedules to the Act were treated as general goods and subject to multi-point tax under section 5 (1) of that Act. When there were no separate entries referring to puffed rice or parched rice and parched rice or puffed rice emerged only on account of heating or parching they did not constitute a different commodity, but it was another form of rice. In the same manner it must be held that merely because ragi is subjected to grinding all that it would result is another form of ragi making it more useful and less cumbersome for consumption. In the same manner it must be held that merely because ragi is subjected to grinding all that it would result is another form of ragi making it more useful and less cumbersome for consumption. Indeed, the Supreme Court noticed this aspect in Rajasthan Roller flour Mills's case [1993] 91 STC 408 at page 421 as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . The High Courts while applying the principle of this judgment to the question at issue herein ignored the fact that the said decision did not deal with the meaning and ambit of the several sub-clauses in clause (i) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and also the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Act did not place parched rice and puffed rice under separate entries in any of the Schedules to the Act. In our opinion, the principle of the said decision has no application in the context and scheme of sections 14 and 15. " Thus, this explanation given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case would indicate that in cases where there are no separate entries there was no question of interpretation of such a commodity coming under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The goods in question will have to be treated as was done in Alladi Venkateswarlu's case AIR1978 sc 945 , (1978 )2 SCC552 , [1978 ]3 SCR190 , [1978 ]41 STC394 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ212 (SC ). Thus, I am of the view that the principles laid down in Venkateswarlu's case AIR1978 SC 945 , (1978 )2 SCC552 , [1978 ]3 SCR190 , [1978 ]41 stc394 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ212 (SC ) would be applicable to the facts of the present case rather than in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills' case AIR1994 SC 64 , JT1993 (5 )SC 138 , 1993 (3 )SCALE600 , 1994 Supp (1 )SCC413 , [1993 ] supp2 SCR72 , [1993 ]91 stc408 (SC ). It is no doubt true that in arriving at this conclusion reference was made to the reasoning adopted in Raghurama Shetty's case [1978] 47 STC 369 (SC) and the economic concept of consumption of one kind of commodity and emerging out of it another kind of commodity, which has higher utility than the commodity consumed. But, that does not state the principle on which the decision rested. But, that does not state the principle on which the decision rested. Te decision was rested on the basis of the scheme of sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and that makes all the difference in this case. ( 10 ) IT may be of some historic importance to notice that subsequently the State of Karnataka has issued a notification in No. FD 43 CSL 94 (III) dated March 30, 1994 exempting the tax payable by a dealer under section 5 of the Act on the sale of the goods mentioned therein. The State itself has exempted ragi flour from being brought to tax. If this view of the department is taken note of on the principles of 'contemporanea legis" it must also be held that Ragi flour gets the same kind of exemption as under item mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. ( 11 ) IN that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to refer to a long catena of decisions referred to by the learned counsel on either side. ( 12 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The assessment order impugned herein shall stand quashed, as also the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Consequently, the demand arising thereof shall also stand quashed. After issuing rule the some is made absolute accordingly.