JUDGMENT

DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Trade Tax Revision No. 656 of 2001.

In these appeals, a common question of law arises, therefore, for the sake of convenience the facts of only Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002 are recapitulated.

The issue involved in these appeals is confined to the rate of tax applicable on the sales of Bubble-gum. According to the appellant, Bubble-gum is taxable as an unclassified good and would attract the duty at the rate of 10% inclusive of surcharge. In the impugned judgment, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that Bubble-gum is a confectionery item and, therefore, be taxed at the rate of 6.25%.

The Tax Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1994-95 has levied the tax with additional tax at the rate of 10% treating Bubble-gum as unclassified and non-scheduled item. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the learned First Appellate Court accepted the submission of the respondent and taxed Bubble-gum at the rate of 6.25%. The appellant aggrieved by the said order preferred the second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Branch - II Ghaziabad. The Tribunal in detail discussed the controversy involved in the case.

Under the UP Sales Tax Act, a notification fixing the rate of tax on Bubble-gum for the year 1994-95 was not issued. Under the Government Notification No. Vya.Ka. - 2-1225/Eleven dated 31.3.92 and Notification No. Vya.Ka. - 2-3403/Eleven dated 1.10.94, the liability for payment of tax has been fixed for Sweets, Sweetmeat, Namkeen, Cooked Food, Revadi, Gajak, Biscuit, Double-bread, Cake, Pastry, Rusk and the products of Sugar under the UP Sales Tax Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that the official language of the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi. If any difference is found between the notifications in English and Hindi, the notification issued in Hindi will be applicable. On the said notification, the courts have decided that confectionery comes within sweets (mithai) and sweetmeat, but it has not been mentioned that Bubble-gum comes within the category of a Sweet.

This court in the case of Pappu Sweets and Biscuits & Another v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow (1998) 7 SCC 228 observed thus :

"12. "There is no doubt that a toffee is a sweetmeat, as understood by the people where toffee originated" and that "Toffee and other things of that nature are of foreign origin and are sweets or sweetmeat according to those people and their nature cannot be changed simply because their origin is different from what is usually conveyed by the word 'mithai' in this part of the country", the High Court preferred to decide the issue by relying upon how toffee is understood by the people of the country where it originated rather than by considering how "toffee" is understood in India and more particularly in the State of U.P. As held by this Court in CCE v. Parle Exports (P.) Ltd. (1989) 1 SCC 345 p. 357 para 17 :

"The words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them."

In that case, the question that had arisen for consideration was whether non-alcoholic beverage bases are food products or food preparations in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 55/75 dated 1-3-1975. This Court observed that non-alcoholic beverages are not understood in India as food products or food preparations, though they might have been regarded as such in foreign countries. The High Court, therefore, should have applied the test of popular parlance by finding out how toffee is understood in the country and more particularly in the State of U.P. No evidence was led by the State to substantiate its case that "toffee" is considered as sweetmeat either by the dea