R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - (1.) WHETHER the non-specification of the rate and the stage at which imported sugar is to be taxed, with reference to the sugar imported by the petitioner in March and April 1994, disentitles the State from levying sales tax on that sugar is the question which requires our consideration in this writ petition. The principal submission urged is that imported sugar is an item of declared goods having regard to entry (viii) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, that sugar being covered under sub-heading No. 1701.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, to which entry (viii) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act refers, and that the State Legislature had not, till the year 1998, specified the rate and stage of levy for imported sugar, that specification having been made only with effect from May 4, 1998 under the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1998, which introduced item 71-A in Part B of the First Schedule to the Act making the sale of such imported sugar taxable at the first point of sale at the rate of 4 per cent. The Revenue does not, and rightly, dispute the fact that the rate and stage of levy had not been specified with reference to imported sugar specifically. It is, however, the case of the State that imported sugar is taxable under the residuary entry 68, which provided for levy of tax at the rate of 8 per cent. That stand has been taken by the State notwithstanding what the assessing officer had done. He had treated this imported sugar as declared goods and had taxed the same at the rate of 4 per cent notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific entry in the Schedules, which specified imported sugar and also the rate and stage at which sale of such sugar is to be taxed. The assessing officer had relied upon an administrative circular in which the State's view had been recorded that imported sugar would fall under the residuary entry but the tax to be levied thereon should be limited to 4 per cent as in the State's view, such sugar was "declared goods". That circular had proceeded on the basis that imported sugar was taxable with effect from August 11, 1993 as, on and from that date the amending Act 3 of 1994 had come into force and in that amending Act the Third Schedule, which lists out the goods exempted from tax, contained the entry in item 3(i), 'sugar, other than khandsari sugar (produced or manufactured in India) as described in column (3) against the heading 17.01 in column (1) of the First Schedule to the said Act". The" said Act" , referred to in the entry, in item No. 3(i), is the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Central Act No. 58 of 1957). Thus the circular was based on the assumption that exemption having been confined to sugar produced or manufactured in India, sugar imported into India is taxable.Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which read along with section 3 being the charging provision in relation to declared goods, reads as under : "Tax in respect of declared goods. - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) to (8) of section 3 or section 3-A or section 3-B but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of sections 3, the tax under this Act shall be payable by a dealer on the sale or purchase inside the State of declared goods at the rate and only at the point specified against each in the Second Schedule on the turnover in such goods in each year." Section 3 which is titled as" levy of taxes on sales or purchases of goods", in sub-section (1) reads as under : "(1)(a) Every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year exceeds three lakhs of rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whatever be his turnover for the year, shall pay a tax for each year in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year exceeds three lakhs of rupees but does not exceed ten lakhs of rupees shall not be liable to pay tax on the first three lakhs of rupees of his total turnover, provided that no amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax has been collected by him under this Act in respect of that first three lakhs of rupees." " Declared goods"have been defined in section 2(h) of the Act as follows : "'declared goods' means goods declared by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce." It is thus clear that section 3(1) of the Act, read with section 4, requires dealers, who deal in sale or purchase inside the State of declared goods to pay tax, "at the rate and only at the points specified against each in the Second Schedule" on the turnover of such goods in each year. The specification of the rate and the stage is, therefore, an essential requirement, without which the dealer cannot be held liable to pay tax under the Act. The mere fact that the goods dealt with by the dealer are declared goods will not suffice. It is only when the rate of tax as also the point at which the levy to be made are specified, the dealer dealing in declared goods will become liable to pay tax. The importance of specifying the stage of levy in order to enable the State to demand and collect tax from a dealer was pointed out by the apex Court in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The court in that case held that in the absence of a notification which the State of Uttar Pradesh was, in terms of the sales tax law prevailing in that State, required to issue, specifying the stage at which the tax had to be collected, which is a vital pre-requisite of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, namely, that the tax shall not be levied at more than one stage, had not been specified in respect of the turnover of cotton yarn, the assessment which had been challenged in that case was required to be quashed. Thus, the essential requirement of prescribing the stage of levy, set out in section 4 of the State Act, is a requirement which is not merely self-imposed by the legislation enacted by the State, but is a requirement which is mandated by the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act under section 15, which sets out the restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods in a State.Section 15 gives effect to what is provided for in article 286(3) of the Constitution, which provides that, "any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods, being a tax of the nature referred to 'after the amendment to article 366 of the Constitution', in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of clause (29A) of article 366, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify." In the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the court with regard to the essential components which enter into the concept of a tax, observed thus : ".................... The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity." The law so declared was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agra Belting Works. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State, however, contended that even though the rate and stage have not been specified after enumerating imported sugar as separate item in any of the Schedules, imported sugar would still fall under the residuary entry. In order to be able to make such assertion, learned counsel contended contrary to what the assessing officer had done and contrary to what the Commissioner of Commercial Tax had opined, that imported sugar is not an item of declared goods at all and, therefore, the non-specification of imported sugar in the First Schedule would not disentitle the State from levying tax on imported sugar, as the residuary entry would take within its fold all goods which are taxable but which have not been enumerated in the Schedule.It was his endeavour to show that the sugar imported by the dealer, which is admittedly refined sugar, is not an item covered under entry (viii) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. That entry (viii) reads thus : 'sugar covered under sub-heading Nos. 1701.20, 1701.31, 1701.39 and 1702.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)." Those sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act are to be found in Chapter 17 'sugar and sugar confectionery", in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. That Act repealed the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with effect from February 28, 1986. The reference to the Central Excise Tariff Act came to be made in several entries in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act thereafter, in place of the reference made to the Central Excise Act. Several of the items in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act were amended by the Central Act 26 of 1988 with effect from May 13, 1988, deleting the reference to the Central Excise Act and in its place referring to the headings or sub-headings in the relevant chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Prior to the amendment effected by Act 26 of 1988, the entry in relation to sugar under the Central Sales Tax Act referred to the definition of the sugar contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act in entry 1 thereof. That entry read thus : 'sugar, produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar - 'Sugar' means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 degree centigrade, would be more than ninety." After the amendment in the year 1988, for ascertaining the scope of the entries mentioned in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, reference must be made to the Central Excise Tariff Act, wherever that Act is referred to in those entries. The reference to that Act is made in entry (ii-a), which refers to cotton fabrics, entry (vii) which refers to man-made fabrics, entry (viii) sugar, entry (ix) unmanufactured tobacco and entry (x) woven fabrics of wool.The expression used in all those entries uniformly is goods "covered" under the heading or the sub-heading, as the case may be, of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, at the outset sets out the notes. Note 2 therein reads thus : "For the purpose of sub-heading Nos. 1701.10, 1701.20, 1701.31 and 1701.39 'sugar' means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 degree centigrade would be more than 90." It may be noted here that this definition is practically the same as the definition of 'sugar", which had been set out in the repealed First Schedule to the Central Excise Act and which had been incorporated by reference in item (viii) under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. That definition in the Central Excise Tariff Act is however made applicable only to the sub-headings specified therein. Heading No. 17.01 in Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act describes the goods thus : "Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form." Under that heading are to be found five sub-headings, the first of which (1701.10) is 'sugar, in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power". The second sub-heading (1701.20) is" khandsari sugar". The third sub-heading (1701.31) is," sugar, other than khandsari sugar". Under that sub-heading there are two other sub-headings," Required by the Central Government to be sold under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955". Sub-heading 1701.39 is" other". The last sub-heading, 1701.90 is also" other". For the sake of completion, we may also mention that the other sub-heading referred to in clause (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act is 1702.11 "palmyra sugar".It was submitted for the Revenue that imported sugar falls only under the heading 1701.90, a sub-heading, which is not referred to in item (viii) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, it would not constitute "declared goods". This submission was made even while asserting that refined sugar manufactured by the sugar mills in India falls under item 1701.39. The point of distinction that was sought to be made was the place of manufacture, sugar manufactured domestically and sugar manufactured outside India and later brought into India. It was contended that the reference to the Central Excise Tariff Act, in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, should be understood to mean that the goods which are to be treated as declared goods are only goods to which the Central Excise Tariff Act would apply and consequently all such goods would have to be of domestic manufacture. Learned counsel sought to distinguish the word "covered" used in entry (viii) after the amendment in the year 1988 and contrasted it with the words "as defined in", which had been used prior to that amendment. It was submitted that legislation by incorporation can make a definition given elsewhere in another statute a part of the referring statute without making the other provisions of that referred statute also a part. In this case, the Legislature not having used the word "as defined in" but having adopted a different expression "covered under", it was the legislative intent to include only the goods which are covered under the Act in which such goods have been mentioned. The Act referred to being the Central Excise Tariff Act, it was submitted, would imply that the goods which are covered under that Act would be the goods, which could be regarded as declared goods and none other.We do not find it possible to subscribe to that view. The reference to the Central Excise Tariff Act came to be made in the Central Sales Tax Act only by reason of the repeal of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act which classified in an elaborate way the various goods to which the Central Excise Act was to apply, such a classification having been made in conformity with the harmonised commodity description and coding system, which system had been agreed to internationally to bring about uniformity in the mode of description of goods, which are the subject-matter of international trade. Parliament thought it fit not to continue the reference to the repealed enactment and wanted to take advantage of the more precise classification of goods set out in the Central Excise Tariff Act. That Act was referred to in several of the entries in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act either by referring to the whole headings thereunder or sub-headings only in certain cases. In the case of sugar, the reference was not to the main headings, but to the specified sub-headings. The sub-headings chosen by Parliament for being referred to for the purpose of identifying sugar, which is declared goods, are items which answered the definition of sugar as it had been defined earlier in the repealed First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, the only exception being palmyra sugar, for which the sucrose content is not specified. The sugar covered under entries 1701.10, 1701.20, 1701.31 and 1701.39 is sugar, the sucrose content of which, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 degree centigrade, would be more than 90. This is so, by reason of Note 2 in the Chapter which has been extracted earlier. The other sub-heading under 17.01 (1701.90) would obviously be applicable only to sugar, the sucrose content of which is less than 90.The expression "covered under" would, in the context of its use in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, only denote the applicability of the description set out in those sub-headings referring to the goods in question. If the goods answer the description set out in those sub-headings, then they would be regarded as sugar which is declared goods for the purpose of section 15. They are only meant to be an aid to identify the sugar to which the protection intended by Parliament under article 286 was to be extended. It is evident that by using the word "covered under", Parliament did not intend that the goods declared by it to be declared goods, which are also goods which had been referred to in the several chapters under the Central Excise Tariff Act, should be subject to the levy of Central excise, which would only happen if those goods are manufactured in India. There is nothing in the Act to indicate such an intention. The background in which the entries came to be amended also does not indicate any such intention. As noticed earlier, the reason for referring to the Central Excise Tariff Act was not to restrict the class of declared goods but merely to adopt the description thereof given in the classifications under the Central Excise Tariff Act, which had repealed the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, which only gave a broad description and did not include any sub-classifications. The entry relating to sugar in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act reads thus : 'sugar as defined in item No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." Similarly, tobacco was referred to in item No. (ix) as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act. Again in item (x) woollen fabrics were also referred to as defined in that Act. In item No. (ii), cotton fabrics were also identified with reference to the definition contained in that Act. The amendment to that Schedule made by the amending Act, 1988, merely incorporated into the description of goods under section 14, the descriptions given in the relevant headings and sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act.The Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., referred to the definition of sugar contained in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, which had been incorporated into the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, by employing words in that Act which were identical to those in item (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act prior to the amendment of 1988, and held as follows : "The definition of 'sugar' in the First Schedule of the Excise Act has been incorporated in Schedule III to the said Act. The definition must, therefore, be read as it stands and, so read, all sugar, whether imported or otherwise is not liable to tax under the said Act if produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar." The use of the words "covered under", after the amendment in the year 1988 did not bring about any fundamental change in adding a requirement for the declared goods in the description of which certain headings or sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act are referred, that the goods be manufactured in India and be subject to the levy of Central excise. The words "covered under" merely denote that which is comprehended thereunder or that which can properly be includible within the scope of the terms employed in that which had been referred to. The legislative draftsman has wide choice of expressions and the fact that the words chosen here are "covered under" and not "as defined in" does not indicate a desire to make the applicability of the Central Excise Tariff Act the test for determining the declared goods in section 14 wherever that other Act has been referred to in order to make certain headings or sub-headings therein a part of the Central Sales Tax Act by incorporation.There is no dispute about the fact that the sugar imported by the dealer in this case was cane or beet sugar, that its sucrose content was more than 90 per cent, and that it was sugar manufactured in a factory. Though the repealed First Schedule to the Central Excise Act referred to sugar manufactured in a factory ordinarily using power, there is no such requirement spelt out in Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The scheme of heading 17.01 is to specify in its sub-headings sugar in relation to the manufacture of which no process is carried on with the aid of power, khandsari sugar, sugar which is required by the Central Government to be sold under section 3(2)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act; and all other sugars under a residual category "other" in 1701.39 if the sucrose content is more than 90 per cent. There is no essential difference in this respect between what is found in Chapter 17 and what was found earlier in Sl. No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, Sugar having sucrose content of less than 90 per cent would not, therefore, fall under the sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act and referred to in item (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Sugar falling within the scope of the sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act and referred to in item (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act would be declared goods, irrespective of the place of their manufacture. The test is not as to where the goods were manufactured, but as to whether the goods answer the description in the sub-headings. If the description fits, such goods become declared goods. It was argued for the Revenue that in the scheme of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, Parliament has itself indicated certain commodities, which even when imported would qualify as declared goods, as in the case of cotton in entry (ii), which refers to all kinds of cotton, indigenous or imported, and the omission to refer to the imported sugar in item (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act would indicate the legislative intent to confine the benefit of section 14 only to indigenously manufactured goods. This argument, though superficially attractive, is without substance. Cotton referred to in item (ii) included indigenous or imported cotton even prior to the amendment of the year 1988. Moreover, as held by the apex Court in the case of State Trading Corporation, the definition, which is incorporated into the Central Sales Tax Act and which definition does not make a distinction between imported and indigenous manufacture would take within its scope the imported as also indigenous product.The fact that the word "imported" is not found in item (viii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, therefore, does not result in the declaration with regard to sugar being confined only to sugar which is produced domestically. On principle also there is no reason for making a distinction between indigenous and imported goods, as long as the goods are considered to be important in inter-State trade and commerce. After importation, the goods enter into the domestic stream and the interest of the customer would be adversely affected, if the imported goods were to be taxed at a higher rate, exceeding the rate at which the goods of similar description manufactured in India is subject. The object of the declaration is to promote the interest of the consumer and to ensure the smooth flow of inter-State trade and commerce. Learned counsel for the State also referred us to the classification of sugar in the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The classification therein is for the purposes of that Act and cannot be the foundation for understanding the scope of the sub-headings in the Central Excise Tariff Act. Parliament, when it amended the Central Sales Tax Act in 1988, was fully aware of the existence of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. But, it chose to refer to headings and sub-headings contained in the Central Excise Tariff Act, for describing some of the declared goods. It is the description given in that Act that one must look to for understanding the true scope of such entries. Learned counsel also referred to "bura sugar" and pointed out that kind of sugar had been included in the First Schedule to the State Act and that by itself would indicate that sugar which contains more than 90 per cent sucrose could still fall outside the scope of declared goods. The action of the Legislature in including declared goods in the First Schedule even while having a separate Schedule for declared goods and providing for levy of tax at a higher rate than what is permitted for declared goods, does not on that ground deprive the declared goods of the protection of article 286 and section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In fact, the Legislature itself has shifted that entry subsequently to Third Schedule, which provides for full exemption for the goods specified in that entry.The conclusion therefore, is inescapable that imported sugar is as much declared goods as is domestically manufactured sugar, if the sucrose content exceeds 90 per cent. It is not disputed that the imported sugar in this case has a polarisation of 99.5 per cent. The polarisation is apparently no different from the sucrose content. It is not the case of the State that the sucrose content of the imported sugar is less than 90 per cent. The State Legislature has, in the entries relating to sugar in the Third Schedule to the Act, exempted sugar other than khandsari sugar, produced or manufactured in India from tax. In the Second Schedule the sugar, in or in relation to which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, is subjected to tax at the point of first sale at 4 per cent. Khandsari sugar also is similarly taxed at the same rate at the stage of first sale. The Second Schedule which deals with declared goods thus specifies only sugar, which is not manufactured with the aid of power and khandsari sugar. It does not specify imported sugar nor does it specify sugar manufactured with the aid of power. There is no specific entry in the Second Schedule which is capable of taking within its fold refined sugar which is produced domestically or outside. Sugar produced in a factory is specified only in the Third Schedule, which deals with goods which are exempt from tax. In the anxiety to grant exemption to sugar produced or manufactured domestically the reference to sugar manufactured in a factory had been completely omitted in the Second Schedule, which refers only to khandsari sugar and sugar manufactured without the aid of power. The assumption made by the Revenue that by limiting the exemption to sugar manufactured or produced in India, sugar imported from outside would automatically be subjected to tax is a wholly erroneous assumption. Without specifying the rate and stage of levy, imported sugar could not be subjected to tax.Thus, while holding that the imported sugar in this case is declared goods and even that declared goods can be taxed subject to the maximum prescribed by the Central Sales Tax Act, the imported sugar in this case cannot be subjected to tax, as the stage at which the tax is to be levied and the rate at which such tax is payable have not been specified. The writ petitions are allowed. Writ petitions allowed.;