As per case facts, dealers filed Writ Petitions in various High Courts arguing that the term "Wheat" in Section 14(1)(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act included Flour, Maida, and ... Suji, thereby classifying them as "declared goods" and restricting State taxation. While the High Courts of Karnataka and Patna agreed with this interpretation, the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan rejected it, leading to appeals by both the States and the dealers before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether Flour, Maida, and Suji, which are products derived from wheat through milling, retained the identity of wheat and should therefore be considered "Wheat" within the scope of "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that Flour, Maida, and Suji are not "Wheat" within the meaning of Section 14(1)(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and are not "declared goods." The Court clarified that commercially, these are distinct goods from wheat, as wheat loses its identity during the production of flour, maida, or suji. It emphasized that restrictions on State legislatures' power to levy taxes, such as those in Sections 14 and 15 read with Article 286(3) of the Constitution, must be interpreted strictly, meaning only the goods explicitly listed are covered, and no other commodities can be included through interpretation. The Court also noted that if Parliament intends to include these derived products as declared goods, it must do so through a legislative amendment.