Judgment :- It is agreed that the facts in W.P. No. 74 of 1970 may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership-firm carrying on business in matches. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 (the former the subject-matter of W.P. No. 74 of 1970 and the latter the subject-matter of W.P. No. 76 of 1970), the petitioner paid the sums of Rs. 1, 91, 400 and Rs. 8, 64, 637.50 as and by way of excise duty to the Central Government. The petitioner claimed in its returns under the Central Sales Tax Act a deduction of the aforesaid amounts in the taxable turnover on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Yaddalam's case The petitioner here relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court commonly known as Pothan Joseph's case that if excise duty was deductible under the local sales tax law for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable turnover, then such duty was deductible for arriving at the taxable turnover under the Central sales tax law also. The petitioner contended that as during the relevant years excise duty was deductible under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, such a deduction has to be necessarily made even under the Central Sales Tax Act on the basis of the law and the decisions then in force. The contention was not accepted on the ground that section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it stood originally, did not touch upon the question exemption, but only prescribed a procedure in the matter of making assessments under that Act. The petitioner took up the matter before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. It is no doubt common ground that under rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, until it was deleted, a deduction could lawfully be made from the taxable turnover of the State Act of the amounts paid by way of excise duty. But by Madras Ordinance No. 5 of 1968, promulgated on 31st December, 1968, this rule was deleted with retrospective effect and in any event it was made clear that the rule should be deemed to have been deleted from 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1966, both days inclusive. Madras Ordinance No. 5 of 1968 was substituted by the Madras General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (Madras Act 3 of 1969). Madras Ordinance No. 5 of 1968 was substituted by the Madras General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (Madras Act 3 of 1969). The Central Sales Tax Act also was amended soon thereafter by Central Ordinance No. 4 of 1969 which was promulgated on 9th June, 1969. I shall refer to its relevant provisions later. The main purport of the amendments are to the following effects : (a) Even though excise duty is deductible under the local law of the State no such deduction would be permissible in computing the turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act; (b) in certain cases an exemption from liability to pay such tax was made which is to the following effect :(i) If the dealer effecting a sale during the relevant period under the Central Sales Tax Act has not collected any tax under the principal Act, on the ground that it is not recoverable; and (ii) no such tax could have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal Act by this Ordinance had not been made. Thus, to gain an exemption the above two conditions must be satisfied. The result is that if there was a State law which enables the inclusion of the turnover in question in the taxable turnover, then notwithstanding the fact that the dealer had not collected such tax under the Central Sales Tax Act he can be made liable. In the instant case, the petitioner contends that he did not collect sales tax on that part of the turnover relating to excise duty on the ground that the same was not liable to sales tax under the quondam provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. I have already referred to Madras Ordinance No. 5 of 1968, which merged into Madras Act 3 of 1969, whereunder the State law withdrew the exemption available to dealers who paid excise duty and which was made retrospective and in particular made retrospective during 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1966. The taxable years in question in these writ petitions fall within the above period. The result is, if the retrospectivity of Madras Act 3 of 1969 is accepted, then the petitioner should suffer Central sales tax for the assessment years in question over the excise duty paid by it and which has not been included by it in the taxable turnover. The result is, if the retrospectivity of Madras Act 3 of 1969 is accepted, then the petitioner should suffer Central sales tax for the assessment years in question over the excise duty paid by it and which has not been included by it in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal under its challenged orders held that under the provisions of Madras Act 3 of 1969 excise duty paid by dealers in the course of their inter-State trade was not deductible from the taxable turnover as it was not deductible during the relevant period even under the Madras General Sales Tax Act as amended by Madras Act 3 of 1969. The Appellate Tribunal also held that as the petitioner satisfied only one of the conditions which would entitle him for exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act - which conditions have already been noticed by me in brief - the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed. I may at once state that the Central Sales Tax Ordinance (No. 4 of 1969) has subsequently been replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Central Act No. 28 of 1969).Mr. V. K. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned counsel who argued for the petitioners, contended that section 10 of Central Act 28 of 1969 should not be construed in the light of the retrospective amendment of the Madras Act. In any event, he said that in the circumstances the Central Act should be deemed to prevail over the Madras Act. Incidentally, the petitioners challenge the vires of Madras Act 3 of 1969 in the sense that it cannot be understood to be a legislation which is within the competence of the legislature. The ultra vires nature of Madras Act 3 of 1969, which replaced the earlier Ordinance, is based on the fact that there were no circumstances which required immediate action within the meaning of article 213 of the Constitution and that the reason given for promulgation in the preamble to the Ordinance which was substituted by Madras Act 3 of 1969, as if the decision in Pothan Joseph's case is the cause, cannot be the cause at all. It was stated that the impugned Madras law is one which is within the exclusive power of Parliament under article 246 read with Schedule VII, List I, entry 92-A and, therefore, beyond the law-making power of the Madras State. It was stated that the impugned Madras law is one which is within the exclusive power of Parliament under article 246 read with Schedule VII, List I, entry 92-A and, therefore, beyond the law-making power of the Madras State. Shortly, it was stated that as the Madras law virtually alters the legal position under a Central law, it had no such authority to amend. Then it was said that the Ordinance as well as the Act go beyond the power of retrospective legislation. Reference was made to section 4 of the amending Act 3 of 1969, the language and content of which, according to the learned counsel, is otiose and has no meaning. Lastly, it was said that as the original assessments have been completed on the basis of the valid old law, though incorrectly applied by the assessing authorities, the later amending law cannot set at naught closed matters and, in this view, Madras Act 3 of 1969, in so far as the assessments are concerned, cannot govern the situations posed therein. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal was wrong in negativing the request for exemption on the only ground that one of the conditions for granting exemption was absent and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to relief.In the counter-affidavit the legal questions are answered. It is stated that while interpreting section 10 of Central Act 28 of 1969, it is just and necessary and quite legal also to have regard to the provisions of Madras Act 3 of 1969. As the foundation for exemption springs from the conjoint application of both the Central and the local Acts, every situation has to be adjudged on its merits and on the law in force on the date of final assessment. Viewed in that light, it is stated that the Tribunal's order was right. It is contended that Madras Act 3 of 1969 is well within the power of the State Legislature and is also a law made under the appropriate entry in the correct schedule to the Constitution. By making a law which well within its power it cannot be said that the local legislature is attempting to encroach upon the powers of the Parliament. As the legislature is competent to make the law with retrospective effect, no question of its validity or its untenability arises. By making a law which well within its power it cannot be said that the local legislature is attempting to encroach upon the powers of the Parliament. As the legislature is competent to make the law with retrospective effect, no question of its validity or its untenability arises. I shall now briefly refer to the law in force before and after the decision in Yaddalam's case The issue relating to the right of a dealer to deduct the excise duty paid by him to the Central Government from the taxable turnover under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act was raised for the first time in the case reported in Mariappa Nadar's case Previously, excise duty was always included in the taxable turnover of an assessee on his inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act. It may be noted here that so far as the payment of excise duty on goods manufactured and sold locally, i.e., within the State, is concerned, such amount was excluded from the taxable turnover because of the express provision, namely, rule 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, and rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which directed that while computing the taxable turnover, excise duty paid to the Central Government should be deducted from the total turnover of an assessee. No such express exemption either in the Act or under the Rules is provided under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.For the first time in Mariappa Nadar's case it was contended that a reading of sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act together will show that the law relating to the sale of goods inside the appropriate State should apply to the sales and, if that is so, since the Madras General Sales Tax Act provides for the exclusion from the turnover under that Act of the amount paid by way of excise duty to the Central Government, the same result should follow. Another contention based on section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act was also pressed into service. Another contention based on section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act was also pressed into service. Great reliance was placed on the following sentence occurring in section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act as it stood then prior to amendment by Act 28 of 1969, "in the same matter as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected" . The court rejected both the contentions and held that the amount of excise duty cannot be deducted from the taxable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act and that the authorities below were right in including the same in the taxable turnover. It may be mentioned here that the Kerala High Court in Parvathi Mills case and the Mysore High Court in State of Mysore v. Mysore Paper Mills have relied on and followed the Madras High Court's decision in Mariappa Nadar's case After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yaddalam's case once again an attempt was made by the counsel for the assessees to argue that the benefit conferred under rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, enures to the transactions under the Central Sales Tax Act also and, therefore, the excise duty paid must be excluded from the taxable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act. In Khader and Co. v. State of Madras the above contention was negatived. This court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court related to a period prior to 1st October, 1958, when sections 8, 9 and 15 of the Act were amended and the judgment of the Supreme Court must be understood in that context. It held further expressly and clearly in the following manner : "'Turnover' is defined (under the Central Sales Tax Act) by clause (j) of section 2 as the aggregate of the sale prices in respect of sales of any goods of inter-State trade or commerce and as determined in the prescribed manner. Section 13 confers rule-making power on the Central as well as the State Governments on specified matters. Power to make rules relating to deductions to be made in the process of determination of turnover has been conferred on the Central Government by clause (1)(b) of that section. Section 13 confers rule-making power on the Central as well as the State Governments on specified matters. Power to make rules relating to deductions to be made in the process of determination of turnover has been conferred on the Central Government by clause (1)(b) of that section. In exercise of this power, the Central Government has framed the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. This Rule, both before and after its amendment in 1962, provides for certain deductions which do not include excise duty. Section 6 which is the charging section in the Central Act makes it clear that the charge will be on the turnover and that means turnover as defined in that Act. No rule framed under the Central Act provides for deduction of excise duty. We are of the view, therefore, that it is not possible to uphold the contention for the assessees that in determining the aggregate turnover of inter-State sales, they are entitled to deduction of excise duty." * This judgment in Khader and Co. v. State of Madras was followed in Tirukoilur Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras At page 391 this court held : "This court in Khader & Co. v. State of Madras held that there was no provision in the Central Sales Tax Act or the Rules made thereunder for deduction of excise duty from chargeable turnover." * In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer.