Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. A common question of law is involved in all the above cases and, therefore, they are disposed of together by a common judgment. As the facts in all these cases are substantially the same, it is sufficient to set out the facts in T.C. No. 197 of 1970. The petitioner in this case is a partnership-firm carrying on business in matches. For the assessment year 1964-65, it had paid a sum of Rs. 1, 91, 400 as and by way of excise duty to the Central Government on the matches manufactured and sold during that year. The petitioner had claimed a deduction of the aforesaid amount in its returns filed under the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called as the Central Act, on the ground that excise duty paid to the Central Government is an allowable deduction under rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessing authority rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction on the ground that section 9(3) of the Central Act as it stood originally only attracted the procedure for assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the State Act, for making the assessments under the Central Act and that as such the exemptions provided under the State Act will not be available in respect of assessments made under the Central Act. Aggrieved against that decision, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the petitioner's claim for deduction towards excise duty paid by him in respect of the assessments under the Central Act was not tenable in view of the decisions in Mariappa Nadar v. State of Madras State of Mysore v. Mysore Paper Mills Khader and Co. v. State of Madras and Tirukoilur Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras. There was a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal considerable reliance was placed by the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons in support of its case that if the excise duty was deductible under the local sales tax law in the computation of the taxable turnover, then such duty was also deductible in arriving at the taxable turnover under the Central sales tax law. But the Tribunal taking note of Madras Ordinance 5 of 1968 (replaced by Madras Act 3 of 1969), which omitted rules 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, and 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, with retrospective effect from 5th January, 1957, held that in view of the deletion of the provision for deduction from the taxable turnover in relation to excise duty paid by the dealer under the State Act, no claim for deduction could be sustained under the Central Act even as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in Yaddalam's case. The petitioner then relied on section 10 of Central Ordinance 4 of 1969, which came into force on 9th June, 1969, and claimed that as it has not collected any tax under the Central Act from its customers on the ground that no such tax is leviable on the turnover relating to excise duty, it is entitled to exemption from liability to pay tax in respect of the said turnover. The Tribunal took the view that for claiming exemption under section 10 two essential conditions are to be satisfied : (1) that the dealer should not have collected tax on the ground that tax is not leviable on excise duty, and (2) that tax could not have been levied or collected under the principal Central Act before its amendment under Central Ordinance 4 of 1969. On facts the Tribunal found that the department has not verified whether the petitioner has collected tax or not on the disputed portion of the turnover. However, it held that even assuming that the petitioner has not collected tax, still the second condition set out above was not satisfied and, therefore, it is not entitled to the exemption under the said section 10. According to the Tribunal, in view of the deletion of the provision for deduction in relation to the excise duty under the State Act, tax could be levied and collected on excise duty under the Central Act even before its amendment by Central Ordinance 4 of 1969 and, therefore, the second condition is not satisfied. In that view, the petitioner's appeal came to be dismissed. In that view, the petitioner's appeal came to be dismissed. That view of the Tribunal has been challenged in T.C. No. 197 of 1970.The assessment years and the turnovers disputed in each of the above cases are set out below : Case No. Assessment year Disputed turnover (Excise duty) T.C. 197 of 70 1964-65 Rs. 1, 91, 400.00 T.C. 196 of 70 1965-66 8, 64, 637.00 T.C. 225 of 70 1965-66 45, 900.00 T.C. 226 of 70 1964-65 45, 900.00 T.C. 227 of 70 1965-66 1, 85, 197.00 T.C. 228 of 70 1965-66 2, 63, 199.50 T.C. 307 of 70 and 1965-66 2, 21, 318.00 W.P. 303 of 70 Except the difference in the disputed turnover, the facts in all these cases are the same. The common question involved in all these cases is as to the true scope of section 10 of Central Act 28 of 1969, which has replaced clause 10 of Central Ordinance 4 of 1969. Before proceeding to consider that question, it is necessary to refer to the changes brought about in the provisions of the State Act as well as the Central Act. We will first refer to the changes brought about in the State Act so far as excise duty is concerned. Under rule 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, excise duty paid to the Central Government by a dealer in respect of goods manufactured by him is an allowable deduction in the computation of the taxable turnover. The said Rules were replaced by the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, with effect from 1st April, 1959. Rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, also allowed a similar deduction in respect of excise duty paid by the dealer. However, the said rule 6(f) was deleted with effect from 1st April, 1966, by a notification of the State Government in G.O. No. 1041, Revenue, dated 29th March, 1966. Later by the Madras Ordinance 5 of 1968, which came into force on 31st December, 1968, the deletion of rule 6(f) was made retrospective from 1st April, 1959. The Ordinance also deleted with retrospective effect rule 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, from 5th January, 1957, to 31st March, 1959. The above Ordinance has been replaced by Madras Act 3 of 1969, which came into force on 4th March, 1969. The Ordinance also deleted with retrospective effect rule 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, from 5th January, 1957, to 31st March, 1959. The above Ordinance has been replaced by Madras Act 3 of 1969, which came into force on 4th March, 1969. The effect of the change brought about ultimately by Madras Act 3 of 1969 is that there was no provision for deduction of excise duty paid by a dealer for purpose of determination of his taxable turnover for the period between 5th January, 1957, to 31st March, 1966.So far as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is concerned, section 9(3) of that Act provided that the assessment and collection of the tax under that Act shall be in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of good under the general sales tax law of a State is assessed, paid and collected, and for the said purpose, the authorities under the State Act may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of that State. Construing this provision, the Supreme Court for the first time in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons held that the expression "in the same manner" occurring in section 9(1) made it clear that the tax payable by any dealer under the Central Act shall be levied and collected in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of a State is assessed and collected and that the expression "levied" occurring in section 9(1) will have the same meaning as under the local sales tax law. In that case, the assessee, a dealer in textiles was taxed on his inter-State sales for the year 1957-58 under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act as it stood then. The assessee contended that as he was not the first seller, he is not liable to be assessed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, if the sale had taken place in that State and, therefore, he could not also be taxed on his inter-State sale under the Central Act. The assessee contended that as he was not the first seller, he is not liable to be assessed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, if the sale had taken place in that State and, therefore, he could not also be taxed on his inter-State sale under the Central Act. The Supreme Court expressed the view that by virtue of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Central Act, the power conferred upon the authority competent is to assess the tax in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of a State is levied and that it is not intended to make a departure in the manner of levy of tax on specified goods which are taxed only at a single point under the State Act. The purport of the above decision is that section 9 of the Central Act not only attracts the machinery provisions under the local sales tax laws but also the substantive provisions relating to the levy and collection of tax. In a subsequent decision in State of Kerala v. Pothan Joseph & Sons their Lordships of the Supreme Court specifically considered the question whether the excise duty which is an allowable deduction under the local sales tax law would also be a deduction under the Central Act by virtue of section 9 of the Act. The Supreme Court following the decision in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons specifically held that the general sales tax law of a State, which would include the Rules framed thereunder, governed the levy and assessment of the tax in the matter of inter-State sales and, therefore, a dealer who is entitled to deduction towards excise duty in determining the total turnover for the purpose of the State Act will be equally entitled to claim deduction in respect of such excise duty in relation to the inter-State sales in determining the turnover for the purpose of the Central Act.Till the above decision in Pothan Joseph's case.