JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, AG. CJ. - This is the sales tax reference at the instance of the assessee under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court : "Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rice bran was other than husk of paddy and not covered under Notification No. 1073-537-V-ST dated April 7, 1967 and was taxable ?" 2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are : The applicant-assessee was assessed to tax for Diwali year 1977-78. The sales tax on rice bran had been assessed to tax at the rate of 3 per cent and the turnover on this account was Rs. 7,13,343. The applicant's case throughout was that sales should have been assessed to tax at the rate of 2 per cent in view of the notification issued by the State Government under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court towards the Division Bench decision of this Court wherein it was held that the husk of paddy is commonly known as konda and is exempted vide notification dated April 7, 1967. However, the Tribunal held that under the notification dated April 7, 1967, husk of all grains, cereals, pulses and rice has been exempted from the payment of tax and not the bran. Before the assessing authority and the first appellate authority, the contention of the assessee was that it was liable to pay tax at the rate of 2 per cent in view of the notification issued under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, but the appeal of the assessee was rejected so far as the claim for reducing the rate of tax under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act was concerned. 3. Now the question which has been referred before us by the Tribunal is as quoted above that whether rice bran is the husk of paddy in terms of notification dated April 7, 1967. This question has been answered by this Court in the case of Chordia Kavelu Udyog v. State of M.P. [1988] 69 STC 49. 3. Now the question which has been referred before us by the Tribunal is as quoted above that whether rice bran is the husk of paddy in terms of notification dated April 7, 1967. This question has been answered by this Court in the case of Chordia Kavelu Udyog v. State of M.P. [1988] 69 STC 49. In this case, earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was also considered where it was held that konda is a husk of the paddy and, therefore, it is exempted. The later Division Bench, after referring to the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Shri Kishan Satyanarain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1983] 54 STC 25, has taken the view that in terms of the notification dated April 7, 1967, husk and bran are two different items and two different entries for purposes of exemption. In the later judgment, this Court has dealt with, in great detail, the notification dated April 7, 1967. For disposal of this reference, notification dated April 7, 1967, is reproduced below : "Notification No. 1073-537-V-ST dated the 7th April 1967. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), the State Government hereby exempts in whole the goods or class of goods mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule below from the payment of tax for the period specified in column (2) thereof : SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description of goods Period (1) (2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Husk of all grains, cereals, From 1st April, 1967 pulses and rice to 31st March, 1968 (both days inclusive). 2. Bran From 1st April, 1967 to 31st March, 1968 (both days inclusive)." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. In the case of Chordia Kavelu Udyog [1988] 69 STC 49, this Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 observed as under relying on the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Shri Kishan Satyanarain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1983] 54 STC 25 : "3. In support of the contention that rice bran was also husk within the a meaning of the notification aforesaid, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Kishan Satyanarain v. State of M.P. [1983] 54 STC 25; 1983 MPLJ 537 . In that case, sales of paddy husk had also been taxed. In that case, sales of paddy husk had also been taxed. It was held that sales of paddy husk called 'konda' was completely exempt from tax by notification dated 7th April, 1967 issued under section 12 of the Act. In our opinion, that decision is distinguishable inasmuch as it was not a case of rice bran. 4. 'Husk' according to dictionary means, inter alia, 'bhusi'. The question as to whether rice bran could be called 'bhusi' or husk, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Naveen Traders [1975] 36 STC 440. It was held that 'bhusa' or 'bhusi' as are understood in common parlance, are commodities obtained from stalk, leaves and husk of grains. Rice, with its outer husk, is known as paddy. After the husk is removed, the product is known as 'rice'. Rice does not have any inner husk. Rice bran is powdered rice and is obtained during the polishing process of the grain itself and is not a product obtained from stalk, leaves or the husk of paddy or rice. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of the said court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jamuna Prasad [1975] 36 STC 442. It was held that bran cannot be included in the category of 'bhusi'. Again the Same view was reiterated in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dhannamal Ram Gapol [1975] 36 STC 445. We agree with this view." Their Lordships, after discussing the whole process, held that the first process for the rice is removal of the husk from the paddy and after removing all the husk from the paddy, the product is known as rice. Further, while polishing rice, the outer layer has to be removed and such item which is removed from the rice is known as a bran. It was pointed out that the rice bran is powdered rice and is obtained during polishing of the rice and it is not a product obtained from the stalk, leaves and husk of grains. In this connection, their Lordships also made reference of two decisions reported in [1975] 36 STC 440 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Naveen Traders) and [1975] 36 STC 445 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dhannamal Ram Gopal). In this connection, their Lordships also made reference of two decisions reported in [1975] 36 STC 440 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Naveen Traders) and [1975] 36 STC 445 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dhannamal Ram Gopal). In both these cases, similar view has been taken that the bran is not the husk of the rice. 5. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the notification dated April 7, 1967, the entry is husk of all grains, cereals, pulses and rice. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that by this notification, what is removed from the rice is husk and that husk is covered by this entry; but that does not appear to be correct interpretation because in view of the interpretation given by successive Benches referred to in the Allahabad High Court judgment, it is now seen that the bran is something which comes out from the polishing process of the rice and it is not the husk which is removed from paddy. In view of this, we are of the opinion that bran cannot be treated as husk. If that is so, then there was no necessity of mentioning "bran" independently in the notification. That gives indication of the intention of the Legislature that it independently wanted to tax bran which is not husk. In this view of the matter, we answer this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in the affirmative.