ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. Petitioner, a public limited company, is aggrieved by the orders of assessment (annexures B and C) passed by respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, as also the orders passed in appeal, revision and reference (annexures D, E, F and G) by respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1--the Deputy Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, and the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, M.P. whereby all these authorities have held that fryums are not "cooked food" and liable to be taxed at the rate of 8 per cent under residuary entry 1 of Part VII of the Second Schedule to the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994"). 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of fryums, a snack food. The period under assessment was April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 and April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994 when the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act of 1958") was in force which stood replaced by the Act of 1994 with effect from February 7, 1995. The original assessment seems to have been made under the Act of 1958 while the reference, appeals and revisions were disposed of under the provisions of the Act of 1994. 3. This case involves interpretation of serial No. 4 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958. The corresponding entry in the present Act of 1994 is at serial number 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule to that Act. The assessment in question was made under the residuary serial number 1 of Part VI of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958. The corresponding provision in the new Act is contained as serial number 1 of Part VII of the Second Schedule thereto. In certain orders reference has been made to the provisions of the Act of 1958 whereas in others the provisions of the Act of 1994 are referred to. However, in either case the question requiring determination is : "Whether fryums are 'cooked food' for the purposes of serial No. 4 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958 (corresponding serial No. 2 of Part I of the Act of 1994) ? 4. However, in either case the question requiring determination is : "Whether fryums are 'cooked food' for the purposes of serial No. 4 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958 (corresponding serial No. 2 of Part I of the Act of 1994) ? 4. The expression "cooked food" has been defined under Clause (cc) of Section 2 of the Act of 1958 as follows : "2(cc) 'cooked food' includes sweets and sweetmeats, mishri, batasha, chironji, shrikhand, rabadi, doodhpak but excludes ice-cream, kulfi, ice-candy, non-alcoholic drinks containing ice-creams, cakes, pastries, biscuits, chocolates, toffees, lozenges, peppermint drops and mawa." More or less similar definition is given in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the present Act of 1994. 5. It is common to find definition clauses and interpretation clauses in a statute defining certain words and expressions used elsewhere in the body of the statute so as to avoid the necessity of frequent repetition in describing the subject-matter to which the word or expression so defined is intended to apply. The Legislature has power to define a word even artificially. So, such a definition may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. When a word is defined to "mean" such and such, the definition is generally construed as restrictive and exhaustive ; whereas, where the word defined is declared to 'include' such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive. A definition may also be both inclusive and exclusive, i.e., it may include certain things and exclude others (as is the case here). Limited exclusion of certain things may suggest that other categories of that thing which are not excluded fall within the apparently wide or inclusive definition (see : Syn. 8, Chap. Ill of Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Vllth Edn.,) 6. In the instant case, the definition is both inclusive and exclusive declaring inclusion of certain things while excluding some others. Its inclusive part is apparently wide and extensive in nature inasmuch as the things declared included in the definition do not constitute an exhaustive list of "cooked food" for the purposes of the Act. However, its exclusive part is clearly exhaustive, that is to say, only those items of "cooked food" are excluded as are enumerated in that exclusive part of the definition. However, its exclusive part is clearly exhaustive, that is to say, only those items of "cooked food" are excluded as are enumerated in that exclusive part of the definition. In other words, the things which are not excluded may also fall within the apparently wide and inclusive part of the definition. The expression "cooked food" has not been given the restrictive meaning and obviously it carries its ordinary meaning while declaring certain things to be included in it and also providing the exhaustive list of things not to be included. It, therefore, follows that such other food items which have undergone process of cooking as is understood in its ordinary sense and not excluded expressly by the said exclusion part of the definition would also fall within the purview of that definition. The word "cook" with reference to food, means to prepare food by heating and the word "cooking" means the art and process by which food is cooked (see ; Oxford English Reference Dictionary--New). So, any item of food prepared by heating would be "cooked food" and fall within Clause (cc) of Section 2 of the Act of 1958 or Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act of 1994, unless it falls within the exclusion part of these defining clauses. 7. Fryums are snack food which are ready to eat after being fried. The petitioner has given details of the process for preparation of fryums. As per this process, raw material consisting of rice flour, wheat flour, edible tapioca starch, salt, spices and edible colour are thoroughly mixed up and blended. Then water is added to the blended material to make it a dough. After applying moderate heat, dough is thermally conditioned. The dough is then pressed through a die to bring out uniform pieces of fryums in a moistered form which are skin-dried to avoid sticking with each other. The pieces are further dried through heating process. What comes out thereafter is the final product called "fryums" which are sold after packing. The 'details of the process are not disputed by the respondents. It will be thus seen that the food product "fryums" are the result of cooking and they can be thus termed as cooked food. 8. The pieces are further dried through heating process. What comes out thereafter is the final product called "fryums" which are sold after packing. The 'details of the process are not disputed by the respondents. It will be thus seen that the food product "fryums" are the result of cooking and they can be thus termed as cooked food. 8. This Court while interpreting item No. 9 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1958 (item No. 9 was later on omitted) in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. India Coffee Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 43 (MP), held that wafers and chips are cooked food. Earlier the cooked food was placed in item No. 9 of the First Schedule to the Act and was exempted from payment of sales tax. Fryums also fall in the category of snack food like wafers and chips. 9. It was, however, contended by the learned Government Advocate that fryums are eaten only after frying and thus a further process of cooking is to be undertaken before they can be put to use. It was thus submitted that such a half cooked food item cannot be termed as cooked food for the purposes of the Act of 1958 or the Act of 1994. I am, however, not impressed by the arguments. Clause (cc) of Section 2 of the Act of 1958 or Clause (g) of Section 2 of the present Act do not make any difference between half cooked food or full cooked food, As already pointed out, the provision admits liberal construction and an item of food which has undergone the process of cooking can be treated as cooked food for the purposes of the aforesaid clauses unless it falls within the exclusion part of those clauses. The demarcation sought to be drawn by the learned Government Advocate cannot be read in the said definition. As observed by the Supreme Court in P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shankar AIR 1984 SC 135 : "A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases". There are no creases in the instant case and the legislative intent is very clear. Any cooked item or food which is not included in the exclusion clause of the definition would fall within the meaning of cooked food as defined under Section 2. 10. There are no creases in the instant case and the legislative intent is very clear. Any cooked item or food which is not included in the exclusion clause of the definition would fall within the meaning of cooked food as defined under Section 2. 10. For what I have said above it must be held that "fryums" are "cooked food" and liable to be assessed under entry 4 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958 (corresponding serial No. 2 of Part I to the Act of 1994). Accordingly I allow this petition and quash the impugned orders (annexures B, C, D, E, F and G) passed by the respondents.