Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. The Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Pondicherry, is the petitioner herein. The assessee Aurofood Limited is doing business in wheat products, biscuits, etc. During the assessment years from 1988-89 to 1991-92, the assessee sold atta, maida, sooji, etc., in one kilogram polythene bags as detailed below : Sl. Assessment year Sales turnover involved on the sale of No. wheat products in one kilogram polythene bags 1. 1987-88 Rs. 05, 53, 207.10 2. 1988-89 Rs. 13, 11, 349.10 3. 1989-90 Rs. 14, 45, 758.88 4. 1990-91 Rs. 02, 12, 206.05 2. The assessee contended that the above sales of wheat products in polythene bags are not sales in sealed containers and therefore they are entitled for exemption from payment of tax as per the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. On the other hand, the assessing officer has rejected their claim in all the four years and levied tax at the rate of 3 per cent treating them as sales in sealed containers. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority, in all these assessment years under consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the parties concerned, reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that the sales of atta, maida, sooji, etc., sold in one kilogram polythene bags during the assessment years under consideration are not sales of atta, maida, sooji in sealed containers, liable for tax as per the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. Aggrieved by that order, the department is in revision before this Court. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in reversing the well considered order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in holding that the assessee was selling atta, maid, sooji, etc., in polythene bags, which is nothing but a sealed container. After the abovesaid products were filled in polythene bags, the bags were tightly sealed by a mechanical process and they were sold as such in the sealed container. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that the container can be either metal container or container made out of other materials like, plastic gunny bags, etc. After the abovesaid products were filled in polythene bags, the bags were tightly sealed by a mechanical process and they were sold as such in the sealed container. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that the container can be either metal container or container made out of other materials like, plastic gunny bags, etc. According to the learned Government Pleader when these materials are packed in a sealed cover made out of polythene, one cannot get access to the products inside the sealed polythene bag without tampering the same at any portion of the bag. Therefore, nobody can have access to the products contained in the sealed polythene cover, without tampering the polythene bag. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that container means that which holds an article or that which contains a material. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in order to understand the meaning of the word "container" ordinary meaning prevalent in common parlance should be adopted and no technical meaning can be attributed in the matter of understanding the word "container". Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the Tribunal misconstrued the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on this aspect and ultimately came to the conclusion, which cannot be accepted in legal parlance. Therefore to support his contention learned Government Pleader relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, that the products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., sold by the assessee in sealed polythene containers are liable to be taxed as per the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. In that view of the matter, it was contended that the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the wheat products sold by the assessee in polythene bag, sealed containers are not taxable, is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that wheat products sold in small one kilogram bag should not be treated as sale in sealed containers. According to the learned counsel, polythene bags cannot be considered as containers. It was also not sealed as contemplated under the provisions of the abovesaid Act. Sales of wheat products, such as atta, maida, sooji, etc., are first sales exempted from tax, unless, they are sold in sealed containers. In the present case, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the abovesaid products were sold only by packing in the polythene bags. Sales of wheat products, such as atta, maida, sooji, etc., are first sales exempted from tax, unless, they are sold in sealed containers. In the present case, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the abovesaid products were sold only by packing in the polythene bags. What was done by the assessee is only packing the products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., in the polythene bags and the said polythene bags containing the abovesaid products were not again put in a container for the purpose of sale. According to the learned counsel, unless the polythene bags containing atta, maida, sooji etc., were packed in another container, the sale cannot be considered as sale of the abovesaid products in sealed containers. Learned counsel also brought out the difference between packing and filling in a container. Since container is absent in the present case, according to the learned counsel exemption cannot be denied for the sale of the abovesaid products in polythene bags. Learned counsel further relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in order to support his contention that exemption should not be denied for sale of atta, maida, sooji, etc., packed in polythene bags. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was correct in granting exemption for the sale of the abovesaid products, which were not sold in a sealed container. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The point for consideration is whether wheat products like atta, maida and sooji sold by the assessee in one kilogram polythene bags are liable to be taxed as sales in sealed containers. Sections 9 and 62 and the Third Schedule to the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, entry 2 states that flour including atta, maida, sooji and bran (except when sold in sealed containers) are exempted from tax. According to the facts arising in this case for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92, the assessee sold wheat products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., in one kilogram polythene bags. The assessee claims exemption from tax as per the abovesaid provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. On the other hand, the department rejected the claim made by the assessee and levied tax at the rate of 3 per cent. treating them as sales in sealed containers. The assessee claims exemption from tax as per the abovesaid provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. On the other hand, the department rejected the claim made by the assessee and levied tax at the rate of 3 per cent. treating them as sales in sealed containers. In the second appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the sale of the abovesaid products was not sold in sealed containers. Therefore, no tax can be levied on the sale value of the abovesaid products. 6. In order to claim exemption the assessee must show that the wheat products were not sold in sealed containers. In this context, it is relevant to see whether polythene bags in which the abovesaid products were sold can be considered as sealed containers. The assessee after filling the polythene bags with the abovesaid products sealed the same with mechanical device. Several decisions uniformly accepted the expression that sealed container means a container which is so closed, that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. 7. A similar question came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. National Chikki Mart . While considering the provisions of Schedule E, entry 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Bombay High Court held as under : "......... To determine whether a container is sealed or not, it is not relevant to consider as to whether to break the covering any instrument or knife is needed or whether it could be done with bare hands or fingers. What is really to be considered is whether the contents of the container could be got at or whether access could be had to them without in any manner breaking any portion of the cover. It is not necessary for a container to be a sealed container that to get access to its contents, the container or cover has to be broken by removing the fastening although it would be the most common method of opening a sealed container. All that is necessary for a container to be a sealed container is that access cannot be had to its contents without breaking the fastening or some portion of the container." * 8. All that is necessary for a container to be a sealed container is that access cannot be had to its contents without breaking the fastening or some portion of the container." * 8. According to the facts arising in the abovesaid decision, the assessee firm, a manufacturer of chikki and farsan, sold the chikki made by it by (i) inserting the paper packed chikki in heat-sealed polythene bags and (ii) putting the chikki in cardboard boxes and inserting them in heat-sealed polythene bags. The question was whether the polythene bags in which the chikki was sold by the assessee were sealed containers within the meaning of entry 6 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It is while deciding this question it was held that as the chikki could not be got except after breaking the polythene bags at some place, the chikki sold by the assessee must be said to be sold in sealed containers within the meaning of that entry. Thus in the abovesaid decision, polythene bags were held to be sealed containers. 9. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. National Chikki Mart) cited supra, will not be applicable to the facts of the case, since the chikki in that case was wrapped with paper and then again it was put in a cardboard box and sold. Therefore, the learned counsel represents that there were two packages and hence the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the goods were sold in sealed containers. In the present case, learned counsel submitted that two stages of packages were absent and therefore, that decision would not be applicable to the facts arising in this case. It remains to be seen that whether there were two packages or one package, when the goods was put in a container and sealed and thereafter if access to the said material inside the container is not possible except by breaking the container it would amount to selling of goods in a sealed container. 10. Similarly, the Karnataka High. Court had an occasion to consider a question of this nature in the case of Nanjundeshwara Mart v. State of Karnataka. 10. Similarly, the Karnataka High. Court had an occasion to consider a question of this nature in the case of Nanjundeshwara Mart v. State of Karnataka. According to the facts arising in that case, the assessee sold instant idli mix, instant vada mix and instant gulab jamoon mix in packets made of polythene in the form of small bags firmly stitched at the openings. On these facts, while answering the questions whether the said items were taxable as goods sold in packed condition packed in sealed containers under entry 98 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, it was held that the expression sealed container means, a container which is so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. In the instant case, the packets in which the goods were sold, were stitched firmly at the openings and it was impossible to have access to the contents without breaking the fastening. Therefore, the goods sold by the assessee were goods sold in a packed condition packed in sealed containers. 11. The Supreme Court (See Martand Dairy Farm v. Union of India while considering the meaning of the expression "sealed container" in Notification No. ST 3506/X dated May 10, 1956 as per the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, held that the expression sealed container means, a container which is so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. The expression "seal" in this context does not involve an affixture of the seal of the seller such as impressing a signet in wax, etc., as evidence or guarantee of authenticity. An article may be regarded as put in sealed containers if it is closed securely in any vessel or container by any kind of fastening or covering that must be broken before access can be obtained to what is packed inside. 12. An article may be regarded as put in sealed containers if it is closed securely in any vessel or container by any kind of fastening or covering that must be broken before access can be obtained to what is packed inside. 12. While considering the meaning of the words "sealed containers" occurring in Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi Schedule II, entry 1, the Delhi High Court (See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pop Corn., that loosely stapled polythene bags, in which it is possible to get at the contents without breaking the staples are not sealed containers within the meaning of entry 1 in the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi and therefore the turnover of pop corn sold in such bags is entitled to exemption under that entry. 13. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G. G. Industries, Agra the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of chocolates, lollipops, etc., being sold by the confectionery in packings of cardboard boxes which were closed by the use of cellophane paper to protect the contents from being affected by the atmosphere. The court relying on the definition of the words "sealed container" held that the confectionery was sold in sealed containers. Its opinion was that sealed containers means, a container, which is so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. 14. While considering the meaning of the words "container" or "packing" the Kerala High Court in the case of M. M. Nagalinga Nadar Sons v. State of Kerala held as under : "It is contended on behalf of the State that the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit under sub-section (7) of section 5 because what is purchased is only 'containers' and not 'packing materials'. The argument is that subsection (7) deals with 'packing materials' whereas sub-sections (5) and (6) deal with 'containers' or 'packing materials' and this difference is substantial in nature. Under sub-section (5) while fixing the total turnover of goods the price of the 'packing materials' or 'containers' is included in the total turnover, where the goods sold are contained in 'containers' or are packed in any packing materials. Under sub-section (5) while fixing the total turnover of goods the price of the 'packing materials' or 'containers' is included in the total turnover, where the goods sold are contained in 'containers' or are packed in any packing materials. Under sub-section (6) where the sale or purchase of goods contained in any containers or packed in any packing materials is exempt from tax, the sale or purchase of such container or packing materials shall also be exempt from tax. Of course, sub-section (7) deals with industrial raw materials or packing materials and not with containers. Because of this difference alone, it cannot be said that in the case of packing materials the benefit under sub-section (7) will not be available. The question is whether the 'containers' will come within the meaning of packing material' as used in sub-section (7). In this context the explanation to sub-sections (5) and (6) is relevant. The explanation is to the effect that the word 'containers' includes 'gunny bags, tins, bottles or other containers'. Therefore the tins purchased by the petitioner are containers within the meaning of the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6). However, under sub-section (7) the benefit is specifically in respect of packing materials. Then the question to be decided is whether the containers purchased by the assessee can be treated as packing material." * 15. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Schedule I, entry 19 in the case of Stare of Andhra Pradesh v. Swapna Mahila Go-operative Super Bazar explained the word "container" in the following manner : "In G. Claridge & Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise the Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression 'container' for the purpose of classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act. After referring to the meaning of the said expressions given in Websters' New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) and Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary, the Supreme Court has observed that a 'container' is used in three different senses : viz., (1)in a broad sense, (2) in a narrow sense, and (3) In a more limited sense. In a broad sense, it means a receptacle which contains and in that sense it includes a 'tray' because it is a receptacle which contains articles. In the narrow sense, it means receptacle in which articles are covered and enclosed and transported. In a broad sense, it means a receptacle which contains and in that sense it includes a 'tray' because it is a receptacle which contains articles. In the narrow sense, it means receptacle in which articles are covered and enclosed and transported. In a more limited sense, the meaning was given as an enclosure used in shipping or railway for transport of goods. Whether the expression is taken in the narrow sense or broad sense, for the purpose of the above entry, having regard to the context in which the expression is used, in our view, it includes iron trunk boxes because articles are placed in it which are covered or enclosed for the purpose of transportation. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision cases but without costs." * Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had another occasion to consider the meaning of the word "container" in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Schedule I, entry 19, in the case of State of A. P. v. Pulp "N" Pack (Pvt.) Ltd. wherein it was held that the paper pulp egg trays used for carrying eggs are containers within the meaning of entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 16. The Supreme Court also had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word "container" in the case of G. Claridge B Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise. The question before the Supreme Court in that case, was whether the egg trays fall within the meaning of the expression "container" in entry 4818.19 of the Central Excise Act. Having considered the definition of the expression "container" in various dictionaries, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the definition would show that the expression "container" was used in three different senses-in broad sense to mean a receptacle which contains; in a narrower sense to mean a receptacle in which articles are covered or closed and transported; and in a more limited sense to mean enclosures used in shipping or railways for transport of goods. It was further observed that in a broad sense, "container" would include tray because it is a receptacle which contains articles and therefore an egg tray would be a container and clarified that an egg tray would not be a container in a narrow sense as the articles placed in the tray are not covered or enclosed and cannot be transported as such. The Supreme Court laid down that the test to find out whether the word in a relevant entry of a statute is used in a narrower sense or a broad sense, is to look into the context in which the word has been used in the entries. The well-accepted principle of statutory construction is that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate senses and that is based on the principle that wards take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. 17. According to the facts arising in the present case, the assessee was selling wheat products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., in one kilogram polythene bags which were sealed by mechanical device. The containers are so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. Therefore, we hold that the sealed polythene bags in which the wheat products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., were sold are sealed containers and therefore, the sale turnover of the assessee in all the assessment years under consideration are liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 per cent. treating them as sales in sealed containers. Thus considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the polythene bags containing one kilogram atta, maida, sooji, etc., are not sold in sealed containers. 18. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the revisions stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.