Judgment :- 1. These appeals raise a common question and were heard together. The question relates to the assessability to tax of the inter-State sales of copra effected by the respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. The tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, can be levied only in the same manner as the tax on the sales of copra under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. It is common ground that the notification dated the 1st April 1958 under S.5(vii) of the General Sales Tax Act. 1125, does not enter the picture in view of the decisions of this Court in Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1962 KLT. 725, and Poulose Bros. v. State of Kerala, 1952 KLT. 974. The sole question for determination, therefore, is whether there is a liability to tax under S.3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. 3. We entertain no doubt that there is such a liability. Sub-section (1) of S.3 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year; and that the tax shall be calculated at the rates specified in column (3) of Schedule I for every rupee in the turnover relating to the goods noted against them in column (2) thereof and at the rate of two naya paise for every rupee in the turnover relating to all other goods. Copra is not included in Schedule land the rate applicable to it should hence be two paise for every rupee in the turnover relating to that commodity. 4. S.3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, however, does not stand by itself as far as copra is concerned. S.14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, deals with goods of special importance in inter-State trade and item (vi) thereof is: "oil-seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oils used for human consumption or in industry, or in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like, or in lubrication, and volatile oils used chiefly in medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like." We entertain no doubt that copra is an oil-seed within the meaning of that expression as defined above - the same view has been taken by the High Court of Mysore in Kasturi Seshagiri Pai & Co. v. The Deputy Commissioner of South Canara, (1961) 12 S.T.C. 629 - and that as a result S.15 of the Central Act comes into operation. That section reads as follows: " Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely, (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed two per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage; (b) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State." 5. In the light of the above provision we must hold that the liability to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arises only when the sales concerned are the only sales or they constitute the first sales in a series of sales. In other words the assessments concerned have to be made in the light S.3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, read with S.15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 6. It follows that the orders impugned have to be set aside to the extent necessary for a re-consideration of the assessments made in the light of the observations made above; and that the Sales Tax Officers should be directed to deal with the matter afresh. We do so. Any guidance necessary will be found in the majority decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons, (1965) 16 STC. 231. 7. The appeals are disposed of as above. No costs.