Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. This is an appeal under s. 37 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the order passed by the Board of Revenue under s. 34. The appellant is a manufacture of iron locks and latches and dealer in hardware. For the asst. yr. 1966-67 he returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 41, 024.43 and Rs. 36, 856.69 receptively. On the ground that day-to-day account was not maintained and the gross profit shown was abnormal, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer added 25 per cent of the taxable turnover return to cover defects and probable omissions. On this head the amount added thus came to Rs. 9, 214.17. The Assessing Authority also was of the view that due to wrong classification or wrong inclusion of taxable turnovers in the second or subsequent sales of declared goods, a turnover of Rs. 1, 238.46 is also to be included in the taxable turnover. This was arrived at on the basis that out of the turnover of Rs. 4, 167.74 shown as second or subsequent sales of declared goods, only a turnover of Rs. 2, 929.28 was not liable to tax as second or subsequent sales and the balance of Rs. 1, 238.46 represented taxable turnover. Thus, the taxable turnover was determined by the Assessing Authority at Rs. 47, 309.32 adding the said two sums (Rs. 9, 214.17 plus Rs. 1, 238.46) to the taxable turnover of Rs. 36, 856.69 returned. Since the assessee wanted to opt for the concessions under s. 7, the Assessing Authority included the turnover on second sales of declared goods amounting to Rs. 2929.28 and inter-sate sales amounting to Rs. 7, 413.13 in ascertaining the total turnover and thus arrived at the total turnover of Rs. 57, 652.33. Since at the relevant period for the applicability of s. 7 the total turnover shown exceeded Rs. 50, 000/- the assessing authority held that the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of s. 7 and accordingly taxed at 2/1/2 per cent on the taxable turnover under s. 3(1) of the Act. 2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that only a sum of Rs. 17.13 was includible in the taxable turnover on account of the wrong classification or wrong inclusion from the turnover on second sales of declared goods and that the entire balance after deducting Rs. 2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that only a sum of Rs. 17.13 was includible in the taxable turnover on account of the wrong classification or wrong inclusion from the turnover on second sales of declared goods and that the entire balance after deducting Rs. 17.13 from Rs. 4, 167.74 was not liable to tax on the ground that they are second sales of declared goods. In this view, he included only a sum of Rs. 17.13 in the place of Rs. 1, 238.46 included by the Assessing Authority and arrived at the net taxable turnover at Rs. 46, 087.99, but while finding out the total turnover of the purpose of applicability of s. 7 he took the figure as Rs. 2, 929.28 given by the Assessing Authority. This is clearly an arithmetical error. When he reduced the sum of Rs. 1, 238.46 to Rs. 17.13 as taxable on the ground of wrong inclusion, necessary the turnover on second sales of declared goods would swell correspondingly but the AAC overlooked this aspect. Therefore, instead of determining the second sales on declared goods as Rs. 4, 167.74 - Rs. 17.13 = Rs. 4, 150.61, he took the same figure of Rs. 2, 929.28 taken by the Assessing Authority. The result was the total turnover for the purpose of s. 7 was reduced to below Rs. 50, 000/- limit. It may be mentioned that there is no dispute in this case and it is also will settled that for the purpose of determining the total turnover under s. 7, the turnover relating to inter State sales is to be included. In the result, in the view that the total turnover for the purpose of s. 7 was only Rs. 49, 017.27 the AAC allowed the benefit of concessional tax under s. 7. The Board of Revenue under s. 34 of the Act and after complying with the formalities, predetermined the total turnover at Rs. 50, 238.60 and held that the assessee was not entitled to the confessional rate under s. 7. It is against this order of the Board of Revenue, the appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that for the purpose of ascertaining the total turnover under s. 7, the second sales of declared goods shall not be taken into account. It is against this order of the Board of Revenue, the appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that for the purpose of ascertaining the total turnover under s. 7, the second sales of declared goods shall not be taken into account. He does not dispute that if the second sales of declared goods are to be taken into account he would not be entitled to the benefit of s. 7. According to the learned counsel, in respect of declared goods by reason of ss. 14 and 15 of the Central ST Act and Art. 286(3) of the Constitution of India, the definition of "total turnover' in s. 2(q) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act would have to be understood as not including such turnover as otherwise it would affect the competence of the legislature itself. He also wanted to contend that if the second sales of declared goods are to be included in the total taxable turnover for the purpose of s. 7, it would amount to taxing the second sales of the declared goods in violation of the prohibition contained in s. 15(a) of the Central ST Act. The learned counsel in this connection also referred to r. 6(e) as supporting his argument. 4. Before dealing with this argument, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions in the Tamil Nadu General ST Act. Sec. 2, which is the definition section, defines "turnover" as meaning the aggregate amount for which the goods are brought or sold. The other portion in the definition are not material for the purpose of this case. "Total turnover" is defined as meaning the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. "Taxable turnover" is defined as meaning the turnover on which the dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such decoctions from his total turnover an in such manner as may be prescribed. 5. Sec. 3, which is the charging section, as it stood in the relevant time, provided that every dealer whose total turnover for a year is not less than Rs. 5. Sec. 3, which is the charging section, as it stood in the relevant time, provided that every dealer whose total turnover for a year is not less than Rs. 50, 000/- shall pay tax for each year at the rate of 2/1/2 per cent of his taxable turnover 507, "which is handed as payment of tax at compounded sales" provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 3, every dealer whose total turnover is not less than Rs. 15, 000/- but more than Rs. 50, 000 may, at his option, instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of s. 3(1), pay tax at the rates specified therein. The applicability of s. 7 thus depended on the quantum of the total turnover. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the words 'total turnover" * in s. 7 should not be understood in the sense in which it has been defined in s. 2(q) and it will have to be understood only in the sense that it did not include the second sales of declared goods. He did not go to the length of saying that the total turnover in s. 7 means only taxable turnover. 7. It is true that s. 2 itself starts with the words that the definition given therein would have to be applied "unless the context otherwise requires" and therefore it is open for consideration whether, in the context of s. 7, the total turnover, means something other than what is contained in the definition of that word in s. 2. But is there anything is the context which requires any restricted meaning to be given to the words "total turnover"? It is not in dispute and could not be disputed that even second sales of goods which are liable for single point levy under the fist schedule are liable to be included in the total turnover under s. 7 though such transactions were not liable to tax under s. 3(1). Sec. 14 of the Central ST Act is only another list of such goods which could be subjected only to a single point tax and not to multiple taxation. Therefore, inherently there is no difference between the declared goods and the other goods referred to in the First Schedule to the Act for purposes of s. 7. Sec. 14 of the Central ST Act is only another list of such goods which could be subjected only to a single point tax and not to multiple taxation. Therefore, inherently there is no difference between the declared goods and the other goods referred to in the First Schedule to the Act for purposes of s. 7. Only in one respect s. 15 of the Central ST Act makes a difference between these two types of goods. In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule it is open to the legislature of the State to prescribe any rate of tax but in respect of declared goods at the relevant period it could not exceed two per cent. Subject to this limitation as to the rate of tax and the single point levy, the legislature was competent to legislate with reference to the declared goods as well. Therefore, we do not find any difference good mentioned in the Second Schedule for the purpose of determining the total turnover under s. 7. As already stated, the learned counsel was not prepared to go to the length of contending that the second sales of goods in respect of which a single point is fixed under the First Schedule are not liable to be included in the total turnover. Logically we do not find any reason to exclude the second sales of declared goods in computing the total turnover for the purpose of s. 7. 8. The learned counsel in fact argued the question as if it were a question of legislative competence to include the second sales of declared goods in s. 7. This is on the assumption that if the second sales of declared goods are included in determining the total turnover under s. 7, they are indirectly subjected to multiple taxation. The matter is not res integer. It is covered by authority and against the petitioner's contention. In Sivamurgan vs. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer 1970 STC 68 , this Court had to consider the scope of s. 7, vis-a vis, ss. 3(1) and 5 of the Act. It was held that the mere fact that the total turnover of an assessee includes a turnover which is not liable to taxation it cannot be stated that the entire turnover had been subjected to tax. 3(1) and 5 of the Act. It was held that the mere fact that the total turnover of an assessee includes a turnover which is not liable to taxation it cannot be stated that the entire turnover had been subjected to tax. What is taxed by applying the provisions of s. 7 is what could have been taxed under s. 2(1) and not this turnover which were not liable to either by reason of its being second sales or otherwise were not liable to be taxed wither by reason of its being second sales or otherwise. This decision was reaffirmed by a later decision of this Court in C.D.C.C.S. & M.S. Ltd. vs. D.C.T.O. It therefore follows that by including the turnovers representing the second sales of declared goods in determining the total turnover they are not subjected to tax and no question of legislative competency therefore could arise. What is taxed under s. 7 are only local sales which could have been taxed under s. 3(1) which were within the competence of the legislature. 9. In this connection, we may also refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court with reference to the scope of ss. 14 and 15 of the Central ST Act which make it absolutely clear that in respect of local second or subsequent sales, inspite of the second or subsequent sales of declared goods being not liable to tax, it can be included by the legislature in determining the total turnover of an assessee. In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. vs. CST, the Supreme Court repelled the contention that provision in a State law either fixing a different rate or in terms covering seconds sales of declared gods also within the charging provision, does not act beyond its powers, and held that is such a case by reason of s. 15(a) of the Central ST Act and Art. 286(3) of the Constitution the relevant discrepant provision of the State Law would get automatically modified as to be in accordance with s. 15(a). The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan vs. State of Punjab. It should also be pointed out that s. 15(a). The dealt with the rate of tax and the point of taxation and did not deal with liability of such turnover being included in determining the total turnover of an assessee. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan vs. State of Punjab. It should also be pointed out that s. 15(a). The dealt with the rate of tax and the point of taxation and did not deal with liability of such turnover being included in determining the total turnover of an assessee. Therefore, neither the provisions of s. 15(a) or Art. 286(3) of the Constitution were contravened nor the legislature had acted without jurisdiction Further, the whole scheme of s. 7 is to give the benefit of compounding rate to small traders. For ascertaining the total turnover of such person therefore, we do not see any justification why such second sales of declared goods could not be included. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to r. 6 cl. (e) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Rules. Under cl. (e) the rule states that in determining the taxable turnover the amount for which goods are sold or purchased in the course of export or import or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce would have to be deducted from the total turnover. It was argued on the basis of these provision that inferentially but for these exclusions, all inter-State sales would have been included in the total turnover thereby suggesting that the words " turnover In s. 7 included something in respect of which the legislature lacks legislative competence. Apart from the fact that this argument in no way advances the case of the petitioner on the point raised we are also unable to accept this argument. The provisions excluding inter-State sales and export and import sales are classificatory and have been specifically provided by way of abundant caution and this Court cannot interpret a provision in the Act with reference to the provisions in the Rules itself. Further, we have to interpret the provisions in the Act so as to make it constitutionally valid and not to include something within it so as to make it ultra vires of its powers. Further, we have to interpret the provisions in the Act so as to make it constitutionally valid and not to include something within it so as to make it ultra vires of its powers. This Court also held in T. A. Kumarasamy Pathar vs. State of Madras that the total turnover as defined in the Act has no reference to inter-State sales which are outside the scope of the Act, but has reference only to sales which are normally chargeable to tax under the Act but due to exemption are not subject to tax. 11. We have, therefore, no doubt in rejecting the argument of the learned counsel that total "turnover" in s. 7 could not include second sales of declared goods. We may also point out that s. 7 itself is an optional provision and if the assessee considers that it will not be beneficial for him to be assessed under s. 7 he could as well opt to be assessed under s. 3(1); of course the option will have to be exercised as per the Rules.12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250/-.