Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether they levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959According to the Revenue, the Tribunal has been properly understood the scope of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, on a proper interpretation of section 3(2) of the said Act, section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal, in support of its view, that section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, would not apply to surcharge leviable under section 3 of the Surcharge Act, 1971, has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Shah & Co. v. State of Madras and of the Supreme Court in Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra. We are, however, of the opinion that the said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. Those cases dealt with penalty, leviable under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the question arose whether the levy of penalty could be sustained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, without a specific enabling provision in the Central Sales Tax Act for the levy of penalty. We are not concerned with such a situation here. Here both the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and this Court, on a close scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. an identical question, as arose in Rajamani v. State of Tamil Nadu came up for consideration. Without reference to the earlier decision, a Division Bench of this Court took a contrary view and held that section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Even a cursory glance of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, 1971 would show that all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in preference to the view expressed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. Even a cursory glance of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, 1971 would show that all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in preference to the view expressed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. Though, under normal circumstances, when there is a diversity of opinion between two Bench decisions of this Court, this Court will refer the matter to a Fuller Bench for an authoritative ruling, we are relieved of the necessity of making such a reference to a Fuller Bench, in view of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa which appear to take a view similar to the one taken in Rajamani v. State of Tamil Nadu. Since the decision of the Supreme Court concludes the issue, in the face of that decision, State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. cannot be taken to lay down the law correctly, and there is no necessity for the question being considered by a Fuller Bench.In Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa the Supreme Court was considering more or less a similar question. There the original Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. Here we have an a fortiori case. Section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, 1971 specifically makes the provisions of the principal Act, as are applicable to the levy of sales tax, applicable to the levy of surcharge. Section 3(2) being part of the charging provision under the Surcharge Act, when it does not say that only those provisions of the principal Act which relate to the assessment and collection of tax will be applicable to the levy of surcharge under the Surcharge Act, all the provisions of the principal Act, including section 22, which apply to the levy of sales tax, will be applicable to the levy of surcharge. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the contention of the Revenue in that case observing, that, if the contention of the State, that all the provisions of the principal Act could not be made applicable to the levy of additional tax was accepted, then the provisions of the principal Act relating to the recovery of tax and the levy of penalty would become unavailable for collecting additional tax and that the provisions of the principal Act, which are necessary for making the levy of additional tax effective, would become inapplicable. The above reasoning of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case. If section 3(1) is treated as a complete and self-contained code on the charge created by it, then section 3(2) cannot be relied upon by the State to attract the machinery provisions contained in the principal Act, such as section 12. If section 22 cannot be made applicable to surcharge, on the ground that section 3(2) will not attract section 22, on the same reasoning, it cannot attract section 12 which is the machinery section to enforce levy and collection of surcharge levied under section 3(1). Therefore, in order to effectuate levy and collection of surcharge imposed under section 3(1), section 3(2) which forms an integral part of the charging section, should be understood attracting all the provisions of the principal Act, save as otherwise provided in the Surcharge Act, 1971. We find that there is no provision in the Surcharge Act excluding the provision in section 22 of the principal Act. So long as there is no exclusion contemplated by section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, it must be understood as attracting all the provisions of the principal Act, as are applicable to the levy of sales tax, for the levy of surcharge as well. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa we hold that the penalty has rightly been levied in this case under section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissathe decision rendered by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. cannot be taken as laying down the law correctly.The tax case is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissathe decision rendered by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. cannot be taken as laying down the law correctly.The tax case is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.