JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Since both the instant petitions involve an identical controversy, they are being decided by this common judgment, while taking the facts and submissions from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2787/2010, treating the same as a lead case. 2. The instant writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction- (i) impugned Circular dated 12/1/2010 (Annexure 7) issued by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) impugned order dated 4/2/2010 (Annexure 9) reopening the already completed assessment and raising huge demand of tax, interest and penalty may be quashed and set-aside. (iii) it may be declared that ‘Frozen Peas’ are fresh vegetables and exempt under the Notification Dated28/9/95. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in trading of Frozen Peas and other Frozen Food Products. It is relevant to mention here that frozen peas are those, which are prepared by boiling the peas at a particular temperature and thereafter, freezing them, while not subjecting them to any kind of cooking process, nor any kind of preservatives are added. 4. The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioner was governed by the Notification dated 28.09.1995 whereby all fresh or dried vegetables were exempted from the tax liability. 5. On 03.01.2006, while the petitioner in the Assessment Year 2003-04, effected the total sales of 37,75,364/- and claimed exemptions in view of the Notification dated 28.09.1995, the return filed by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner’s tax liability was assessed as ‘Nil’. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 15.04.2009 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 14.05.2009 proposing to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2003-04 under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1994’), alleging that the frozen peas are not fresh vegetables, and are thus, not exempted. 6. However, the respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 15.04.2009 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 14.05.2009 proposing to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2003-04 under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1994’), alleging that the frozen peas are not fresh vegetables, and are thus, not exempted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents themselves in a number of States have allowed the frozen peas to be exempted under the category of fresh vegetables and fruits and thus, the proceedings so initiated vide notice dated 15.04.2009 are unlawful. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents despite such contest and defence have imposed huge demand of tax which is to the tune of Rs.14,66,562/-. As per learned counsel, the demand was apparently, in view of Circular dated 27.01.2010 issued by the Additional Commissioner (VAT & IT), whereby the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) were directed to ensure reopening of the assessment and levy tax. 6.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order dated 04.02.2010 (Annexure-9) passed under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 by the respondent No.2 was not in accordance with law, as such proceedings could have been initiated only by the Commissioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). 6.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s assessment for the Assessment Year 2003-04 has been made under Section 29 of the Act of 1994 by the regular assessing authority, vide order dated 03.01.2006, and that, such authority had already assessed the entire return and was satisfied about the nature of transaction and the taxability was thus marked as “Nil”. 6.4. Learned counsel also submitted that there was an explanation in Section 30 of the Act of 1994 which provides that the assessment under this Section shall not include part of business, which has already been assessed under Section 29 of the Act of 1994, and the petitioner falls under such explanation, as its case based on true & correct facts has been examined and his business has been assessed under Section 29 and its taxibility has been declared as “Nil.” 6.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the directives issued by the Commissioner to all the Deputy Commissioners were in violation of the law and thus, leviability of such tax could not have been made. 6.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the directives issued by the Commissioner to all the Deputy Commissioners were in violation of the law and thus, leviability of such tax could not have been made. 6.6. Learned counsel also submitted that the frozen peas do not require any preservatives or any sort of chemical, and the frozen peas continue to be fresh peas or fresh vegetables. As per learned counsel, the process undertaken by the manufacturer does not alter the chemical or physical form, and properties of the peas and the frozen peas continue to remain fresh vegetables and thus, were to be exempted, unequivocally, from tax under the Notification dated 28.09.1995. 6.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have unlawfully held frozen peas as preserved vegetables, and taxed it at the rate of 12% under the residuary entry, however, it was to be exempted under the Notification dated 28.09.1995, being fresh or dried vegetables. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2003-04 for the petitioner was framed under Section 29(4) of the Act of 1994 and the Self Assessment Scheme vide order dated 03.01.2006. 7.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s taxability was assessed as ‘Nil’ only on count of the fact that his annual returns filed on 03.12.2004 under Form ST-5A, had shown the entire sale of frozen food and the bio-food. As per learned Additional Advocate General, it was only upon the enquiry conducted by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Udaipur, it was found that articles sold by the petitioner could not be said to be exempted from payment of tax and hence, the notices under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 were rightly issued on 27.01.2009 to the petitioner by the respondents. 7.2. It was also submitted that the order of assessment dated 04.02.2010 for the year 2003-04 was passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and it was found by the respondent No.3 that the frozen peas sold by the petitioner could not be said to be fresh vegetables, as the same fell under the category of ‘preserved vegetables’ and therefore, were liable to be taxed under the residuary entry attracting 12% rate of tax. As per learned Additional Advocate General, a perusal of the Notification dated 28.09.1995 issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1994 shows that only fresh or dried vegetables, including onion and garlic were exempted from payment of tax. 7.3. It was further submitted that the processing of the frozen peas by subjecting it to a higher degree of temperature and then to a lower degree of temperature amounts to their preservation and thus, ‘frozen peas’ cannot be said to be fresh or dried vegetables so as to fall within the ambit of the Notification dated28.09.1995. 7.4. It was also submitted that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. This Court is of the firm opinion that Taxing Statutes need to be interpreted in strict sense, and in this regard, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 2023 decided on 03.10.2024), as hereunder: “25. Regarding the interpretation of taxation statutes, the parties have relied on several decisions. The law laid down on this aspect is fairly well-settled. The principles governing the interpretation of the taxation statutes can be summarised as follows: a. A taxing statute must be read as it is with no additions and no subtractions on the grounds of legislative intendment or otherwise; b. If the language of a taxing provision is plain, the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to be considered when interpreting the provisions. It is for the legislature to step in and remove the absurdity; c. While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of strict interpretation should be applied; d. If two interpretations of a statutory provision are possible, the Court ordinarily would interpret the provision in favour of a taxpayer and against the revenue; e. In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place; f. A taxing provision cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption; g. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed. The Court cannot imply anything which is not expressed. Moreover, the Court cannot import provisions in the statute to supply any deficiency; h. There is nothing unjust in the taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature’s failure to express itself clearly; i. If literal interpretation is manifestly unjust, which produces a result not intended by the legislature, only in such a case can the Court modify the language; j. Equity and taxation are strangers. But if construction results in equity rather than injustice, such construction should be preferred; k. It is not a function of the Court in the fiscal arena to compel the Parliament to go further and do more; l. When a word used in a taxing statute is to be construed and has not been specifically defined, it should not be interpreted in accordance with its definition in another statute that does not deal with a cognate subject. It should be understood in its commercial sense. Unless defined in the statute itself, the words and expressions in a taxing statute have to be construed in the sense in which the persons dealing with them understand, that is, as per the trade understanding, commercial and technical practice and usage.” 10. On a bare reading of the Notification dated 28.09.1995 itself, it is clear that the point which is to be determined by this Court in the instant petitions, is whether the frozen peas could be termed as fresh or dried vegetables, so as to fall within the ambit of the Notification dated 28.09.1995.For ready reference, the Notification dated 28.09.1995 issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1994, reads as under: “ S. No. 1027: F.4(25) FD Gr.IV/92-Pt.II-21 dated 28.09.1998, pub. 28.09.1995 S.O.125 - In exercise of the powers conferred by S.15, RST Act, 1994, the State Govt. (1), hereby exempts from tax under the said At, the sale or purchase of the following goods on the conditions and exceptions as mentioned against them, namely; Item No. Description of the goods and conditions and exceptions subject to which exemption is allowed 1. (a) Fresh fruits (excluding watery coconuts); (b) Fresh or dried vegetables (including onion and garlic); (c) Vegetable seeds (excluding Matira seeds and Tumba seeds); (d) Fresh flowers and flower seeds; (e) Bulbs and (f) Plants excluding orchids. (a) Fresh fruits (excluding watery coconuts); (b) Fresh or dried vegetables (including onion and garlic); (c) Vegetable seeds (excluding Matira seeds and Tumba seeds); (d) Fresh flowers and flower seeds; (e) Bulbs and (f) Plants excluding orchids. Except when any of these articles (excluding vegetable seeds) is sold in sealed containers. Explanation - The tax, if any charged or collected on the sale of vegetables seeds shall be paid to the Govt. and the tax paid to the Govt., if any, shall not be refunded. 2. Dhai, Khoa and cream. 3. Meat and eggs, in their raw or fresh form. 4. Salt. 5. Handspun and handwoven khadi and yarn produced by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or by any other organisation of person certified by it and sold exclusively by one class of dealers. 6. Handlooms. 7. Fertilisers and manures (not including fertilisers). 8. Cattle feeds excluding gowar, cottonseed [oil-cake and deoiled cake]. 9. Books, slates, slate pencils and periodical journals. 10. Firewood. 11. Water excluding (a) water sold in sealed bottles or containers;(b) distilled water; (c) mineral water; and (d) aerated waters. 12. Handloom cloth excluding pure silk handloom cloth. 13. Electrical energy. This shall have effect from 1 st day of October, 1995.” 11. This Court is of the opinion that aforesaid Notification itself is clear that the exemption will go only to fresh or dried vegetables, and that, as the frozen peas in question are neither fresh nor dried vegetables, and rather have been subjected to extreme temperatures to be treated for consumption at a future date, and packed in polythene bags to make them last long. 12. This Court further observes that the petitioner assessee has nowhere in the self made assessment or declaration declared itself to be engaged in the business of ‘frozen peas’ but has rather used the terms ‘peas’ (green peas) thereby intending itself to be covered under the head of “fresh/dried vegetables” of the aforesaid notification. This conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner tried to escape the assessment by claiming itself to be governed by the aforesaid notification under the garb of treating and declaring ‘frozen peas’ as a bio-food i.e. peas to come under the said exclusion. 13. This conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner tried to escape the assessment by claiming itself to be governed by the aforesaid notification under the garb of treating and declaring ‘frozen peas’ as a bio-food i.e. peas to come under the said exclusion. 13. This Court observes that the reading of the aforementioned Notification 28.09.1995 issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1994 clearly shows that the legislative mandate was for fresh fruits/fresh vegetables/fresh seeds/fresh flowers/Bulbs/Plants excluding Orchids and this is a category which is different from packed and frozen peas, which is a conscious exclusion, and cannot be included by a judicial interpretation. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the instant petitions. 15. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.