JUDGMENT A. M. SAPRE, J. - The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 4023 of 2005 because both these writs involve common questions of law based on identical facts and secondly, arise between the same parties except the difference being that of involvement of different period of assessment years under the Central/State Sales Tax Acts. The question that arises for consideration in these two writs is whether a commodity known as "maize oil" and "cake", which is a by-product of "maize" is a taxable commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act (for short, "the CST Act") and M.P. General Sales Tax Act and M. P. Commercial Tax Act (for short, "MPGST Act/MPCT Act") and if so at what rate ? In other words, the question that arises for consideration in these writs is whether the commodity in question, which is in the nature of by-product of "maize" is subjected to payment of sales tax under the Sales Tax Acts and if so, under which entry and if they are exempt from payment of sales tax then under which entry ? By filing this writ under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (dealer) seeks to challenge the revision orders passed by the Upper Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore dated October 31, 2002 (annexures P17 to 17E). So far as order dated October 31, 2002 (annexure P17) is concerned, it arises out of an assessment order dated May 26, 1997 passed by the assessing officer, Indore whereas other orders, i.e., annexures P17A to 17E are concerned, they relate to different period of assessment and arise out of assessment orders passed on different dates under the State Sales Tax Acts. The petitioner is a registered dealer. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of a commodity known as "maize starch". It is the case of the petitioner, that in the course of manufacture of the said commodity, which is manufactured basically with the use of "maize", certain by-products, namely, "maize oil" and "cake" are generated. The case of the petitioner before the taxing authorities was that both these commodities, i.e., "maize oil" and "cake" are exempt from payment of sales tax under the Central/State Sales Tax Acts during the period under consideration. The case of the petitioner before the taxing authorities was that both these commodities, i.e., "maize oil" and "cake" are exempt from payment of sales tax under the Central/State Sales Tax Acts during the period under consideration. The case of the State was that they are taxable and hence subjected to payment of sales tax at the rate of two per cent. As observed supra, it is this question, which arose before the assessing officer (AO) in the assessment proceedings out of which this writ petition arises. The AO by order dated May 26, 1997 (annexure P16) did not accept the petitioner's contention and imposed a tax at the rate of two per cent. According to the assessing officer, since, the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the case of Tirupati Starch and Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 28 VKN 205, had already taken the view that these commodities are subjected to tax at the rate of two per cent and hence, the petitioner too is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of two per cent on these commodities. It was accordingly taxed. The petitioner felt aggrieved, filed revision before the Upper Commissioner. By order impugned dated October 31, 2002 (annexure P17), the revision was dismissed and as a consequence, upheld the assessment order including the view taken therein. It is against these orders, the dealer felt aggrieved and filed these writ petitions under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The State has filed the return defending the impugned orders. Heard Mr. P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. S. Kutumbale, learned Additional Advocate - General for the respondent/State. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the legality and proprietary of the impugned orders contended that the assessing officer and revisional authority erred in holding that "maize oil" and "cake" are taxable commodities. According to learned counsel, both commodities being in the nature of by-product of "maize" and "maize" being a "cereals" as specified in clause (i)(vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act is exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of exemption notification dated March 30, 1994 (annexure P2) issued by State in exercise of powers conferred by section 12 of the MPGST Act which not only exempts the "cereals" as specified in clause (i) of section 14 ibid. as is clear from clause (i)(i) of Schedule appended to exemption notification but also exempts "by-products of cereals" as is clear from clause (i)(vii) of the said Schedule from payment of tax. The learned counsel contended that the case of the petitioner would fall in clause (ii) of entry 91 of Schedule I of the MPCT Act, 1994 which deals with cases relating to exemption of specified commodities, such as "by-product of cereals" and "foodgrains" from payment of sales tax. This in substance was the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner which he elaborated with reference to other entries and decided case law. The learned Additional Advocate - General appearing for the State supported the impugned orders on the reasoning contained therein. According to him, the view taken by the authorities is in accord with the view taken by the Commissioner in Tirupati Starch case [1995] 28 VKN 205 (annexure P9) and hence, no case was made out for any interference in the impugned orders. The learned counsel also made attempt to support the view with reference to relevant entries and in particular the entries 18 and 38 of Schedule II of the MPCT Act relating to by-products of maize and vegetable oil and contended that the commodity in question would fall in entry 18 or 38 for taxing purpose. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to allow the writs. The exemption notification (annexure P2), so also the entries which govern the issue need reproduction infra : "(1) Sale of certain goods - Exemption (Madhya Pradesh) Notification No. A-5-I-94-ST-V(55) dated the 30th March, 1994. 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 from April 1, 1994 the class of goods, specified in column (2) of the Schedule below from payment of whole of tax under the said Act - Schedule S. No. Class of goods (1) (2) 1. (i) Cereals as specified in clause (i) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) (ii) Foodgrains and cereals other than those mentioned in serial number (i) of this entry. 2. (i) Cereals as specified in clause (i) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) (ii) Foodgrains and cereals other than those mentioned in serial number (i) of this entry. 2. (i) Pulses as specified in clause (vi-a) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956) (ii) Pulses other than pulses mentioned in serial number (i) of this entry. 3. Fertilizers other than oil cakes. 4. All kinds of agriculture implements worked with the aid of power or tractor. 5. Pumping sets and spare parts and accessories thereof. 6. Treated seeds. 7. Atta, maida, suji, rawa flour and other by-products of foodgrains and cereals. 8. Besan, chuni, and other by-products obtained by using pulses. 9. Badi, kuldai, sewai, finger paped, sabudana ke phool. 10. Sugarcane 11. Singhada 12. Phoolbahari jhadoo 13. All kinds of footwear made of P.V.C. and chappals made of rubber and straps thereof the selling price of which does not exceed Rs. 50 per pair. (2) (Section 14 of CST Act) 14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce :- (i) Cereals, that is to say - (i) paddy (Oryza Sativa L.). (ii) rice (Oryza Sativa L.); (iii) wheat (Triticum vulgare, T. compactum, T. sphaerococcum, T. durum, T-aestivum L., T. dicoccum); (iv) jowar or milo (Sorghum vulgare pers); (v) bajra (Pennisetum typhoideum L.); (vi) maize (Zea mays L) (vii) ragi (Eleusine coracana Gaertn); (viii) kodon (Paspalum scrobiculatum L); (ix) kutki (Panicum miliare L.); (x) barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (3) (Schedule I of MPCT Act) Entry 91 Goods exempted from tax Conditions and exceptions S. No. Description of goods subject to which exemptions has been allowed. (1) (2) (3) 91. (i) Atta, maida, suji, rawa and flour (ii) By-products of cereals and foodgrains (4) (Schedule II of MPCT Act) Part V 18. Products and by-products of maize and jowar that is to say :- 4% (i) All kinds of - (a) starch (b) finishore (thin boiling starch), (c) dextrine (d) liquid glucose (ii) Dextrose monohydrate (iii) Hydrol (iv) Corn steep liquor (v) Dextrose anhydrous (vi) Sorbitol. (Schedule II of MPCT Act) Part VI 12. Products and by-products of maize and jowar that is to say :- 4% (i) All kinds of - (a) starch (b) finishore (thin boiling starch), (c) dextrine (d) liquid glucose (ii) Dextrose monohydrate (iii) Hydrol (iv) Corn steep liquor (v) Dextrose anhydrous (vi) Sorbitol. (Schedule II of MPCT Act) Part VI 12. Vegetable and edible oils except hydrogenated vegetable oils 2%" We may consider it proper to mention here that though learned counsel for the parties also brought to our notice some more entries including various amendments made therein from time to time but we do not consider it necessary to quote them because in our view the reference to aforesaid entries are sufficient to dispose of these writs. Plain reading of exemption notification dated March 30, 1994 in juxtaposition with section 14 of the CST Act read with entry 91 of MPCT Act would go to show that "cereals" specified in clause (i) of section 14 as also "cereals" other than those specified in clause (i) of section 14 and "by-products" of "cereals" are exempt from payment of sales tax with effect from April 1, 1994. Section 14 also specifies "maize" to be "cereals" as is clear from clause (vi) ibid. When admittedly "maize" is specified as "cereals" so also "maize oil" and "cake" to be the "by-product" of "maize" then as a necessary corollary "by-product of cereals", i.e., "by-product of maize" would be exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of exemption notification dated March 30, 1994 (annexure P2) read with clause (ii) of entry 91 of Schedule I of the MPCT Act. In other words, once it is admitted that "maize" is a "cereals" and commodity in question, i.e., "maize oil/cake" are by-products of "maize" then "by-products of maize" would fall within the four corners of clause (7) of exemption notification read with clause (ii) of entry 91 of Schedule I of the MPCT Act thereby exempting such by-products from payment of sales tax. In our view, in order to find out as to whether a particular commodity under exemption notification read with clause (ii) of entry 91 is exempt from payment, two things are required to be seen. Firstly, whether commodity in question is a "by-product" and secondly, whether it is generated out of "cereals" specified in clause (i)(i) to (x) of section 14 ibid. Firstly, whether commodity in question is a "by-product" and secondly, whether it is generated out of "cereals" specified in clause (i)(i) to (x) of section 14 ibid. Once it is held that commodity is a by-product of cereals as specified in section 14 ibid. then it is exempt from payment of sales tax. We are not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the the State when he made attempt to bring the case under the entry II, Part V of Schedule II of the MPGST Act dealing with "vegetable and edible oil except hydrogenated vegetable oil". In our view, when there is a specific entry dealing with exemption then in such event, the general entry dealing with the commodity would not be attracted. Its application gets excluded. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the State when he placed reliance on entry 18 of Part V of Schedule II. In the light of exemption notification, no benefit can be taken of this entry else the issuance of exemption notification would be redundant and nugatory. The object of exemption notification is to exempt specified categories of commodities, which are otherwise taxable under the taxing entry. We are also not inclined to accept the reasoning and conclusion of the authorities below which is based on the opinion of Commissioner given in the case of Tirupati Starch and Chemicals [1995] 28 VKN 205. In the first place, it was binding on assessing and revisional authority, they being subordinate to Commissioner. Such view was not binding on High Court. Secondly, the view that we have taken is based on plain reading of relevant entries governing the issue and lastly in the light of what we have held supra, the opinion of Commissioner is no longer hold good. It is, accordingly, overruled. In our view, if there arise any ambiguity or anomaly due to issuance of several notifications/amendments, etc., in respect of commodity in question then it is for the State to remove such ambiguity and make the intention of State clear about its taxability. In view of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders (annexures P17A to 17E) passed by the Upper Commissioner are quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. In view of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders (annexures P17A to 17E) passed by the Upper Commissioner are quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. As a result thereof, the assessing officer is directed to pass fresh assessment orders for the period in question treating the two commodities to be exempt from payment of sales tax under Central/State sales tax laws during the period under consideration. No cost.