H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as Act, 1957) and also registered as 'tourism industry' with the Director of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, as category 'b' unit of Industry located at Halagevaderahally, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. ( 2 ) THE assessee for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 had filed annual return of turnover and had declared the sales turnover of Food and Dr inks at Rs. 28,91,755/- and rs. 27,65,150/- respectively on the entire turnover by placing reliance on the Tourism Policy of karnataka and the package of incentives and concessions offered to the Tourism Industry by the state-Government in its order No. ITY. 9. TTT. 89 dated 30. 5. 1992 and the certificate issued by the director of Tourism in No. DTR/htls/11/94/05/210 dated 9. 4. 1997. Since the sale of 'drinks' not only included sales of beverages like coffee, tea but also sales of IML and beer, the assessing authority while concluding the assessments for the relevant assessment years had disallowed the claim of exemption on the sales turnover of IML and beer and brought the same to tax under section 5 (1) (A) of the Act. In the appeal filed against the said order by the assessee, the first appellate authority had allowed the appeal and had directed the assessing authority to grant the claim of exemption on the sales turnover of IMIL and beer for the relevant assessment years. This order was taken exception to by the revisional authority, on the ground, that the order passed by the first appellate authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. After following the formalities required the revisional authority has cancelled the order passed by the first appellate authority and has restored the orders passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 by invoking his suo moto revisional powers under section 22-A (1) of the Act by his order dated 22. 10. 2003. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act and has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. 10. 2003. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act and has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are:" (i) Whether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was justified in law in initiating proceedings under Section 22-A when none of the requirements of that Section are satisfied to sustain the order in question? (ii) Whether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, whether it is within the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to give a contrary view and finding that the word drink would include alcoholic drink when in the context of the Tourism Policy and the Notification of the Government such interpretation is impermissible? (iii) Whether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, it is permissible to rely upon the entries of the Second Schedule to hold that the word drink when it is not conditioned or qualified to exclude alcoholic drink? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the respondent revisional authority is sustainable in law?" ( 3 ) BEFORE we advert to the rival contentions, it will be convenient to refer to the Tourism Policy of the State Government and the implementing notification issued pursuant thereto. The State government has announced the 'tourism Policy' of Karnataka by a Government Order dated 30. 5. 1992. The object of the policy appears to be to promote tourism related activities and thereby enhancing employment and income generation among all Sections of the Society all over the state of Karnataka and for diversifying the tourism product to increase tourist arrivals into the state. To achieve this objective, the State Government has sanctioned a new package of incentives and concessions to the tourism industry in the State. Apart from other incentives and concessions, the tourism policy also provides for 100% exemption from payment of sales tax to all new tourism units including hotels for a period ranging from three (3) years and seven (7) years from the date of commencement of tourism services depending upon their location. Apart from other incentives and concessions, the tourism policy also provides for 100% exemption from payment of sales tax to all new tourism units including hotels for a period ranging from three (3) years and seven (7) years from the date of commencement of tourism services depending upon their location. ( 4 ) THE State Government after experimenting with the aforesaid policy and after noticing, the 10% of investment from private sector in the now tourism units and after receiving various representations from the new tourism units on various provisions of the Tourism Policy, has revised its earlier policy by issuing guidelines for implementation of new tourism policy with effect from 1. 6. 1997 to remain in force till 31. 5. 2002. The redefined new Tourism Policy provides for reclassification of tourist places in the State of Karnataka under category A, B, C, D and E, investment subsidy, exemption from sales tax, luxury tax, etc. , in the annexure appended to the revised policy. Under this policy, the now tourism units will be exempted from payment of 100% sales tax wherever applicable only on eatables served in the Hotel and Restaurant attached to the hotel or Project. Here again, categorizations of new tourism units are made for the period of exemption depending upon their location in the State. If an "unit" falls under "b" category location, the period of exemption will only be for a period of three (3) years from the date of commencement of tourism services and if the unit fill under the category of "c" to "e", for a period of seven (7)years from the date of commencement of tourism, services. ( 5 ) THE assessee has registered it self as a tourism unit with the Government of Karnataka vide order No. DTR/htls/11/96-97 dated 28. 9. 1996. On the request made by the assessee, the director of Tourism, Bangalore, has issued a certificate dated 9. 4. 1997 granting 100% exemption from payment of sales tax and luxury tax for a period of three (3) years from the date of going into business as evidenced by first sale invoice dated 21. 2. 1997. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to Government Policy/order dated 30. 5. 1992, the State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 8-A of the Act has issued a notification in no. FD. 188. CSL. 92 (1) dated, 30. 12. 2. 1997. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to Government Policy/order dated 30. 5. 1992, the State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 8-A of the Act has issued a notification in no. FD. 188. CSL. 92 (1) dated, 30. 12. 1993 exempting with immediate effect, the tax payable under the Act in respect of sale of food and drinks by anew tourism units situated in specified columns and to the extent indicated therein and during the period mentioned therein. The notification so issued by the State Government has some bearing on the issues raised in this appeal and therefore, the same is noticed by extracting the entire notification. The same reads as under: "notification - I" in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with immediate effect the tax payable under the said Act in respect of sale of food and drinks by new tourism units situated in the places specified in column (2) of the table below to the extent indicated in column (3) and during the period mentioned in column (4) there of namely:"explanation I: - For the purpose of this notification a New Tourism Unit means a unit satisfying the following conditions: (i) The unit has been recognised by the Director of Tourism, Government of Karnataka as a 'new tourism Unit'. (ii) The investment in the fixed assets of the unit has taken place on or after 1st June, 1992 and on or before 31st May, 1997. Explanation II: - The provisions of this notification shall not be applicable to: (i) The units whose investments are for expansion, modernization and diversification of an existing tourism unit established in a different name after the closure of another unit which existed prior to 1st June, 1992. (ii) The unit which ceases to be a tourism unit, from the date of it ceasing to be so; and (iii) The turnovers on winch tax is collected by the eligible units under the provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) The unit which ceases to be a tourism unit, from the date of it ceasing to be so; and (iii) The turnovers on winch tax is collected by the eligible units under the provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. PROCEDURE: (i) The Eligible units must produce before jurisdictional assessing authority, the original certificate issued by the Director of Tourism, Government of Karnataka certifying; (a) that the unit is registered with the Director of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, and that the unit is situated in places of category 'b' or 'c' as specified in the GO. No. ITY 9 TTT 89, dated 30th May, 1992. (b) that it is eligible for the sales tax exemption in terms of GO. No. ITY 9 TTT 89, dated 30th May, 1992 as a New Tourism Unit. (c) that the investment in fixed assets by the unit has take place on or after 1st June, 1992 and on or before 31st May, 1997; (d) the date of commencement of tourism services, by the unit; and (e) that during each accounting year during the period in which it is eligible to the concession do unit was an eligible tourism unit and that where it cease to be so, the date from which it did so. (ii) The certificate mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-Para (i) shall be produced by the unit before the assessing authority before the completion of assessment relating to the first accounting year during the period of exemption under this notification; (iii) The certificate mentioned in clauses (a) and (e) shall however, again be produced before the assessing authority before the completion of the assessments relating to each succeeding accounting year of the period of exemption. " ( 7 ) NOW we advert to the Entries relied upon by the revising authority to form an opinion "drinks" envisaged in the notification is only non-alcoholic beverages and not alcoholic beverages. There are two entries in the Second Schedule to the Act, Which provides for levy of tax on sales of IML and Beer and Food and Drinks. Entry 6 of Part 'l' of Second Schedule to the Act provides for liquor imported from outside the country and also liquors other than those imported and that with effect from 1. 4. There are two entries in the Second Schedule to the Act, Which provides for levy of tax on sales of IML and Beer and Food and Drinks. Entry 6 of Part 'l' of Second Schedule to the Act provides for liquor imported from outside the country and also liquors other than those imported and that with effect from 1. 4. 1996, apart from what is mentioned above, the legislature has included within the definition of liquor, fenny, wine and liquor. Entry 8 of Part 'f' of Second Schedule to the Act provides for food and non-alcoholic drinks. This is an inclusive definition providing for various types of foods and non-alcoholic drinks, which are eligible for payment of sales tax under the Second Schedule to the Act. ( 8 ) THE revising authority, primarily relying on these two Entries in the Second Schedule appended to the Act has come to the conclusion that the appellate authority has erred in allowing exemption of the sales of IML and Beer by a new tourism unit on their sales of alcoholic beverages. ( 9 ) THE Learned Counsel Sri S. Narayana for the assessee would contend that the food and drinks on which exemption is granted by implementing notification issued by the State Government pursuant to the Tourism Policy would also include alcoholic beverages and therefore, the revisional authority was not Justified in making difference and distinction between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages while interpreting the word drinks in the implementation notification issued by the State Government pursuant to its industrial policy dated 30. 5. 1992. ( 10 ) SMT. Sujatha, Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that in view of New tourism Policy which has come into effect from 1. 6. 1997, the appellant is not entitled to any exemption from sales tax on 'drinks' be it may be alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, since the exemption from sales tax is provided only on eatables served in the Hotel and Restaurant attached to the Hotel or Project. Proceeding further, the Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that Entry 8, of Part 'f' of the Second Schedule to the Act speaks of only food and non-alcoholic drinks and therefore, what is exempted under the notification is food and non-alcoholic drinks though the notification does not use any prefix to the expression "drinks" in the notification. Proceeding further, the Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that Entry 8, of Part 'f' of the Second Schedule to the Act speaks of only food and non-alcoholic drinks and therefore, what is exempted under the notification is food and non-alcoholic drinks though the notification does not use any prefix to the expression "drinks" in the notification. The Learned Additional Government Advocate further adds, that this Court by interpretation should not widen the meaning of the expression "drink" that finds a place in the notification to include alcoholic beverages such as IML, beer, etc. ( 11 ) BEFORE we consider the rival contentions of the Learned Counsels for the parties to the lis, it will be convenient to clear the apprehension of the Learned Additional Government Advocate for the revenue. It is settled rule of construction that in interpreting a fiscal statute, the Court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies, if there be any, in the statute; it shall interpret the statute as its stands. The Supreme Court in the case of Abraham Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam 41 itr 425 has stated, that, "in considering a taxing Act the Court is not justified in straining the language in order to hold a subject liable to tax". ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Wood Papers and Another 83 stc 251 has observed, "the choice between a strict and liberal construction arises only in case of doubt in regard to the intention of the legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the statute. If the words are plain and clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need for any interpretation. ( 13 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Mangalore and Others 83 STC 228 has observed, that "truly speaking, liberal and strict construction of an exemption are to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. ( 13 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Mangalore and Others 83 STC 228 has observed, that "truly speaking, liberal and strict construction of an exemption are to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause, then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject, but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability, is lifted and the subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction". ( 14 ) IN Re. Novopan India Ltd. , Hyderabad Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 606 the Court has observed:"16. We are, however, of the opinion that, on principle, the decision of this Court in Mangalore chemicals-and in Union of India Vs. Wood Papers referred to therein represent the correct view of law. The principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the assessee assuming that the said principle is good and sound does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting provision they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. This is for the reason explained in Mangalore Chemicals and other decisions, viz. , each such exception/exemption increases the tax burden on other members of the community correspondingly. Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. H. H. Dave that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not to any other basis. Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. H. H. Dave that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not to any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is w room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i. e. , by the plain terms of the exemption. " ( 15 ) AT this stage, it maybe useful to refer to the observations made by the Madras High Court in the case of S. R. and Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 42 STC 99 wherein the Court has observed:"it is a well known principle that when a Legislature or a rule making authority speaks, we must gather its meaning and what was intended primarily and in the first instance from the words used. There are several refinements to this aspect and one of those is dig words used in a taxing statute must be understood in their natural sense and not according to any technical sense, a principle too well established to need quoting of authority. We do not see why the same principle must not be applied to an exemption notification, for, a taxing statute itself has to be construed according to its words and before the revenue can tax a person, the revenue has to establish that the tax falls within the four comers of the statute; in other words, within the import of the statute as stated by the words used in the statute. " ( 16 ) WE do not intend to overburden this judgment with many more case laws on the point. Therefore, we revert back to the issues raised in this appeal. The State Government with the main objective of encouraging tourism industry/units has issued government Order dated 30. 5. 1992. Apart from other incentives and concessions, the government Policy also provides for exemption from payment of sales tax to new tourism units wherever applicable in the manner specified in the policy itself. The State Government with the main objective of encouraging tourism industry/units has issued government Order dated 30. 5. 1992. Apart from other incentives and concessions, the government Policy also provides for exemption from payment of sales tax to new tourism units wherever applicable in the manner specified in the policy itself. Pursuant to the policy of the State government, the implementing agency has issued a notification dated 30. 12. 1993 in exercise of its powers under Section, 8-A of the Act; exempting with immediate effect the tax payable under the Act in respect of sale of food and drinks by new tourism units as specified in the notification. At this stage itself it is relevant to notice that the State Government has revised its Tourism Policy with effect from 1. 6. 1997 and the policy to be in force till 31. 5. 2002. The Policy would apply to new tourism units, which commences execution of the project on or after 1. 6. 1997 and before 31. 5. 2002 with prior approval in writing of the Director of tourism, Government of Karnataka, and would be eligible for incentives and concessions. It is also relevant to notice that it is not the case of the revisional authority that it is the revised new tourism policy that would apply to the appellants new tourism unit and therefore, it may not be necessary to take note of the contention of the Learned Additional Government Advocate for the revenue that the revised Tourism Policy does not provide any exemption on the sales turnover of alcoholic beverages or in the alternative, it provides exemption from payment of sales tax only on the eatables served in the Hotel and restaurant attached to the Hotel or Project and therefore, it should be inferred dig the earlier policy also restricted the exemption only on non-alcoholic beverages. In our view, there is fallacious in submission made by the Learned Additional Government Advocate for revenue. Firstly, the revised policy has made to come into effect only with effect from 1. 6. 1997 and the said policy would not apply to a new to a new tourism unit which has commence the execution of the project on or after 30th March 1992 with the prior approval in writing by the Director of Tourism, government of Karnataka. Firstly, the revised policy has made to come into effect only with effect from 1. 6. 1997 and the said policy would not apply to a new to a new tourism unit which has commence the execution of the project on or after 30th March 1992 with the prior approval in writing by the Director of Tourism, government of Karnataka. It is an undisputed fact, that in the instant case the assessee had registered itself as a new tourism unit with the prior approval of the Director - Tourism, government of Karnataka, vide order No. DTR/htls/11/96. 97 dated 28. 9. 1996. Therefore, it is the earlier Tourism Policy of 30. 5. 1992 and the implementation notification dated 30. 12. 1993 would apply in the assessee's case. Thirdly, the earlier Government Order while sanctioning the exemption from payment of sales tax, only said that new tourism units shall be exempted from payment of sales tax wherever it is applicable and it did not restrict the exemption only on sale of eatables as has been done in the revised policy which has come into effect from 1. 6. 1997. Therefore, the subsequent or the revised Tourism Policy would not throw any light in understanding or interpreting the earlier Government Order dated 30. 5. 1992. ( 17 ) IN this appeal, the controversy is only with regard to the expression 'drinks'. The question is whether the expression 'drinks' would include only non-alcoholic beverages or does it include alcoholic beverages? The view of the assessing authority and the revising authority is, the word 'drink' that is exempted under the implementation notification should be understood only as non-alcoholic beverages, since the Second Schedule to the Act provides separate entries to liquor and food and non-alcoholic beverages and therefore, the words food and drinks appearing in the implementation notification should be understood as items categorized under Entry 8 of Part 'f' of the Second Schedule to the Act which speaks of food and non-alcoholic drinks. The conclusion so reached by the revisional authority is primarily relying on the entries in the Second Schedule to the act. This conclusion of the revising authority, in our opinion, is not a sound reasoning, for the reason, the Schedule in an Act sets down things and object and contain their names and descriptions. The Schedules does not enact anything. The conclusion so reached by the revisional authority is primarily relying on the entries in the Second Schedule to the act. This conclusion of the revising authority, in our opinion, is not a sound reasoning, for the reason, the Schedule in an Act sets down things and object and contain their names and descriptions. The Schedules does not enact anything. The entries therein derive their substance only from the relevant Sections in the Code of the Act and the expressions in the Schedules can have no evocative function. Therefore, while construing a word or expression that finds a place in the exemption notification, their wholesale adoption without qualification it not the correct way of interpreting an article/commodity mentioned in the notification. Reference can be usefully be made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods vs. State of karnataka (1986) 63 STC 239 wherein, the Court has stated that "the question whether raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters after suffering processing retain their original character or identity or become a new commodity has to be determined not on the basis of a distinction made by the state Legislature for the purpose of eligibility to State Sales Tax (e. g. Entry 13-A of Schedule III to karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957), because even where the commodity is the same in the eyes of the persons dealing in it, the legislature may make a classification for determining liability to sales tax". Therefore, in our view, the revisional authority was not justified in coming to the conclusion, that merely because Entry 8 of Part 'f' of the Second Schedule to the Act speaks of only "food and non-alcoholic beverages", the expression in the notification "food and drinks" should 6e understood as categorized under Entry 8 of Part 'f' of the Second Schedule to the Act. ( 18 ) NOW coming back to the expression used in the notification-dated 30. 12. 1993, what is exempted from payment of sales tax in respect of sales under the Act is "food and drinks". The meaning of the expression "food" is any substance normally eaten or drunk by living organism. The term "food" also includes liquid drinks. Food is the main source of energy and of nutrition for animals, and is usually of animal or plant origin. The word "drink" is primarily a verb, meaning to ingest liquids. The meaning of the expression "food" is any substance normally eaten or drunk by living organism. The term "food" also includes liquid drinks. Food is the main source of energy and of nutrition for animals, and is usually of animal or plant origin. The word "drink" is primarily a verb, meaning to ingest liquids. As a noun, it refers to the liquid thus ingested. It is often understood in a narrower sense or in common parlance to refer to alcoholic beverages. Drinks often consumed would include water, juice, soft drinks, sport drinks, dairy drinks, alcoholic beverages, cocktails, mixed drinks, hot beverages including coffee, tea, hot chocolate, etc. Therefore, alcoholic beverages are also drinks not only in the commercial parlance but also in common parlance. Therefore, in our view, 'drinks' that finds a place in the implementing notification dated 30. 12. 1993 would include not only non-alcoholic beverages but also alcoholic beverages. ( 19 ) IN view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the following: i. Sales Tax Appeal is allowed. II. The impugned orders passed by the revisional authority in No. ZAC-IBCD-3: SMR-11:03-04 dated 22. 10. 2003 is set aside. III. The impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority in appeal No. 112 and 113/2002-2003 for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 dated 4. 3. 2003 is restored. Ordered accordingly.