JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The petitioner in O.P. No. 4374 of 1984 is the appellant in this writ appeal. In the original petition, the prayer was to declare sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as unconstitutional, in so far as they authorise the levy of sales tax on the consignment transfer of goods from Kerala State to any other State in India in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. There was also a prayer to quash exhibit P3 assessment order passed against the petitioner for the year 1980-81 dated March 3, 1984. Finally, there was a prayer to interdict respondents 1 to 3 from taking revenue recovery proceedings to realise the arrears in pursuance of exhibit P3. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the original petition, by judgment dated May 29, 1990. The judgment is reported in [1991] 80 STC 444; (1990) 2 KLJ 80 ; (1990) 2 KLT 436 (Hill Produce Corporation v. State of Kerala). 2. We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. A. Mohammed (T). The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellant/petitioner is a firm. It purchases hill produce such as pepper, ginger, etc., within the State. A portion of the goods so purchased is sold within the State. Another portion is sold inter-State. The balance of the goods is transported to the appellant's agents outside the State on consigning the goods to sell for others. For the assessment year 1980-81, the appellant stated that out of the total turnover which was determined at Rs. 83,14,250.21, a turnover of Rs. 70,42,000 represented the closing stock. The assessment was completed including the said closing stock, though it has not obtained the character of being the last purchase. The assessing authority invoked section 8 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and held that goods to the tune of Rs. 70,42,000 were exported to places outside the State of Kerala and it will be deemed to acquire the quality of the last purchase, in view of section 8 of the Act. Admittedly, the goods were despatched out of State. The plea of the Revenue, as could be gleaned from the assessment records and the counter-affidavit, was that the goods taxable at the last purchase point, purchased was to the tune of Rs. Admittedly, the goods were despatched out of State. The plea of the Revenue, as could be gleaned from the assessment records and the counter-affidavit, was that the goods taxable at the last purchase point, purchased was to the tune of Rs. 83,75,430 and the sales within the State was only for Rs. 1,63,200. The remaining goods were taken outside the State and no documents, as required under the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules, were produced to establish the fact that they related to consignment transfer of goods. The Revenue pleaded that no tax was levied on the turnover of consignment transfer. The tax was levied on the purchase turnover of the goods on the ground that the petitioner was the last purchaser in respect of such goods within the State. The assessing authority taxed the purchase turnover of pepper and dry ginger at the hands of the appellant treating it as the last purchaser of those goods within the State. Since it was not established by production of records to show that it was still retaining the title of the goods, the learned single Judge held that it is evident that the appellant has been assessed on the turnover of pepper despatched outside the State treating the turnover as taxable under section 8 of the Act, since it attained the quality of last purchase. It was further held that under section 5A read with section 8, the appellant's purchase of pepper will be exigible to tax having attained the quality of last purchase when the goods have been exported outside the State. Reference was made to the decision in Malabar Fruit Products Company v. Sales Tax Officer [1972] 30 STC 537 (Ker); Yusuf Shabeer v. State of Kerala [1973] 32 STC 359 (Ker) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Kandaswami [1975] 36 STC 191 (SC) to show that section 5A of the Act is a valid and proper piece of legistion. It was held, that the plea that the tax imposed by section 5A is a tax not on purchase but on the use or consumption, was unacceptable, and by the same token, it cannot be contended that the tax imposed by section 5A is a tax not on purchase but on despatch. Section 5A of the Act was held to be not discriminatory and not violative of article 301 of the Constitution. Section 5A of the Act was held to be not discriminatory and not violative of article 301 of the Constitution. The further plea, that what is taxed is the closing stock and that it is unsustainable in view of the decision in State of Madras v. Narayanaswami Naidu [1968] 21 STC 1 (SC), was also repelled by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that the closing stock, whether held within the State or outside the State, will not make any difference, and rightly not includible. The further plea of the appellant that sections 5A and 8 of the Act are infirm was sought to be made out by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1990] 76 STC 71, which was repelled by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that the Supreme Court, in Goodyear India Ltd. case [1990] 76 STC 71, held that in that case the taxable event is the consignment of the manufactured goods, and not the purchase and the levy has no direct connection with the transaction of purchase of raw materials. So understood, the said case is no authority, to hold that section 8 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is in any way invalid or improper. What section 8 postulates is that in the case of goods taxable at the single point, the taxable point is fixed at the stage of purchase or sale effected immediately before the export of the goods. The section provides that in a case where tax is leviable at one point, in a series of purchases in the State, it is deemed to have concluded at the stage of purchase effected immediately before the export of such goods and it was held to be a legislation coming under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the petitioner in the original petition has come up in writ appeal. 3. The grounds of attack taken up before the learned single Judge were repeated before us. We are of the view that the plea, that sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are illegal and unauthorised, lacks substance. Section 5A has been held to be valid by the Supreme Court in Kandaswami's case [1975] 36 STC 191. We are of the view that the plea, that sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are illegal and unauthorised, lacks substance. Section 5A has been held to be valid by the Supreme Court in Kandaswami's case [1975] 36 STC 191. The decision of this Court in Malabar Fruit Products Co. case [1972] 30 STC 537 and Yusuf Shabeer's case [1973] 32 STC 359 were upheld. Section 5A of the Act was held to be not discriminatory; nor violative of article 301 of the Constitution. So, it is idle for the petitioner to contend that section 5A is ultra vires or unauthorised. 4. The only other plea made was that in view of the decision in Narayanaswami's case [1968] 21 STC 1 (SC) as explained by this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Keveyam & Co. [1986] 63 STC 387, in invoking section 8 of the Act, the closing stock is brought to tax, in view of the combined operation of sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Act and this is interdicted in view of the Supreme Court decision in Goodyear India Ltd. case [1990] 76 STC 71. 5. We see no force in this plea. The result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayanaswami's case [1968] 21 STC 1 and Keveyarn & Co. case [1986] 63 STC 387 (Ker) is to hold that the closing stock held by a dealer, whether inside or outside the State, cannot be taxed. In Goodyear India Ltd. case [1990] 76 STC 71, the Supreme Court held that the taxable event in the said case was the consignment of the manufactured goods and not the purchase. In this view, it was held that the levy would lose its character of purchase tax on the transaction and so bad in law. In Goodyear India Ltd. case [1990] 76 STC 71, the Supreme Court held that the taxable event in the said case was the consignment of the manufactured goods and not the purchase. In this view, it was held that the levy would lose its character of purchase tax on the transaction and so bad in law. The decision in Goodyear India Ltd. case [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC) is no authority for the proposition that where in the case of any goods tax is leviable at one point in a series of sales or purchases, it is not open to the State to say that in the case of goods exported out of the State to any place outside India or to any other State in India, such series be deemed to conclude at the stage of sale or purchase effected immediately before the export of such goods and brought to tax under the State Act. The learned single Judge rightly held that sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Act are legislations coming under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. We concur with the learned single Judge and hold that there is no merit in this writ appeal. It should be stated that when the decision in Keveyam & Co. case [1986] 63 STC 387 (Ker) was rendered, no reliance was placed on section 8 of the Act; moreover the explanation to section 2(xxvi) of the Act was in a different form. The non obstante clause was all pervasive. But, the section was amended by Act 6 of 1988, with effect from February 19, 1988. These aspects also deserve notice, in evaluating the plea of the petitioner. 6. The writ appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.