JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M. P., Gwalior) has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"), arising out of the order dated February 3, 1989, passed in Second Appeal No. 230/5/88 for our opinion : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that soyabean is covered under the terms and is included in entry No. 1 of Part V of Schedule II to the Act and is liable to tax at the rate of 3 per cent specially when it is covered under clause (iv) of entry No. (vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the non-applicant was assessed to tax under the Act for the period November 5, 1983 to October 24, 1984, by the Sales Tax Officer, Shajapur, on December 29, 1986. In this order the turnover taxable at the rate of 4 per cent was determined (annexure "B"). The non-applicant filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ujjain. In the appeal the contention of penalty alone was agitated. The appeal was, however, rejected (annexure "C"). The non-applicant then filed second appeal registered as 230-V/88 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the non-applicant was liable to tax at the rate of 3 per cent because soyabean is undoubtedly used for food and the ratio of the decision rendered by this Court in General Foods Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] 66 STC 271 supported the contention of the assessee (annexure "D"). It was held that soyabean was covered under entry No. 1 of Part V of Schedule II appended to the Act and was, therefore, taxable at the rate of 3 per cent. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the application under section 44(1) of the Act. On this application, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the abovenoted question for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/department. None appeared for the non-applicant/assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the application under section 44(1) of the Act. On this application, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the abovenoted question for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/department. None appeared for the non-applicant/assessee. 4. Under entry No. 1(ii), Part V of Schedule II, foodgrains and cereals other than paddy and those mentioned in serial number (i) of this entry and goods exempt under entry 3 of Schedule I are liable to tax at the rate of 3 per cent. This Court in the aforesaid case of General Foods Private Limited [1987] 66 STC 271 held that the expression "cereal" as covered under entry No. 1(ii) of Part V, as noted above, connotes any grain used for food and as such soyabean is undoubtedly used for food. The point thus stands concluded by the aforesaid decision. 5. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. 6. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships. In the words of Judge Learned Hand, spoken in Cabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2d 737 at 739, we get enough light to locate correct path : "It is one of surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence..... to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." 7. Soyabean is said to be covered under clause (iv) of entry No. (vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. 8. Considering the facts and features and the position of law, we hold that the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the soyabean is covered under term cereal and is liable to tax at the rate of 3 per cent. 9. Consequently we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 10. This reference application thus stands disposed of but without any order as to costs. 11. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal in accordance with law. Reference answered in the affirmative.