JUDGMENT R. C. LAHOTI, J. - This order shall also govern the disposal of M.C.Cs. No. 188 of 1986 and 194 of 1986; all the three cases being between the same parties and arising out of reference applications made at the instance of the Revenue, under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only), the periods of assessment being different, but the questions of law being common in all the three cases. The questions are : (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessing authority in Madhya Pradesh had no jurisdiction to tax the assessee in respect of subsequent inter-State transactions amounting to Rs. 96,555, Rs. 22,54,171, Rs. 32,19,826.16 and Rs. 7,23,748 in the years November 8, 1961 to October 28, 1962, October 29, 1962 to November 15, 1963, November 16,1963 to November 3, 1964 and November 4, 1964 to October 24, 1965, respectively, because the "C" forms obtained from the State of Madhya Pradesh were not actually issued by the assessee in making the inter-State purchases of such goods ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and competent to hold that condition No. 1 given in Notification No. 2353-1765-V-SR dated October 27, 1959, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it stood before the amendment made vide Notification No. 1014-196-V-ST dated April 3, 1964 is discriminatory in nature and, therefore, void ? 2. It is not necessary to notice the facts in detail as they are clearly perceptible from the question themselves. 3. Question No. 1 : The answer to the question has been rendered more or less academic on account of legislative amendment made with retrospective effect. Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it stood at the material time read as under : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. 3. Question No. 1 : The answer to the question has been rendered more or less academic on account of legislative amendment made with retrospective effect. Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it stood at the material time read as under : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. - (1) The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, whether such sales fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of section 3 shall be levied and collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in sub-section (3) in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced : Provided that, in the case of sale of goods during their movement from one State to another being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods, the tax shall, where such sale does not fall within sub-section (2) of section 6, be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods." 4. Section 6 of the Central Sales tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (No. 28 of 1969) substituted the text of section 9 with retrospective effect to the following effect : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. Section 6 of the Central Sales tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (No. 28 of 1969) substituted the text of section 9 with retrospective effect to the following effect : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. - (1) The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, whether such sales fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of section 3, shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that Government in accordance with the the provisions of sub-section (2), in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced : Provided that, in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another, being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods, the tax shall, where such sale does not fall within sub-section (2) of section 6, be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained, or, as the case may be, could have obtained, the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods." (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty, payable by the dealer under this Act as if the tax or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferor of any business, imposition of tax tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, penalties, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly : Provided that, if in any State or part thereof there is no general sales tax law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf make necessary provision for all or any or the matters specified in this sub-section. (3) The proceeds in any financial year of any tax, including any penalty, levied and collected under this Act in any State (other than a Union territory) on behalf of the Government of India shall be assigned to that State and shall be retained by it; and the proceeds attributable to Union territories shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India." The most material change relevant for the purpose of the present reference by the 1969 Amendment Act is that the words "or, as the case may be, could have obtained" have been added in sub-section (4). In the unamended provision there was a lacuna which was noticed by the Madras High Court in the State of Madras v. K. Nandagopal Chetty [1968] 22 STC 290. It was a case where the goods initially moved out from the State of Gujarat to the assessee under an inter-State sale within the purview of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and when they were in transit, the assessee transferred the documents of title to a buyer in the State of Madras. Sales of particular goods were exempt from tax in the State of Gujarat and neither the assessee issued a declaration in form "C" to the Gujarat sellers nor the latter certified to the former in form "E-1". The question was whether the subsequent sale effected by the assessee being outside the purview of section 6(2) could be taxed by the State of Madras under proviso to section 9(1) in the assessment year 1960-61. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held : "(1) That when the proviso to section 9(1) speaks of obtaining the form prescribed for the purposes of section 8(4)(a) in connection with the purchase of such goods it means that the C form certificate has been obtained in respect of the particular first sale of the goods. The concluding phraseology in the proviso is not used in the abstract; but since the jurisdiction is to be localised with reference to particular transactions, the form spoken of must necessarily relate to such transaction. The concluding phraseology in the proviso is not used in the abstract; but since the jurisdiction is to be localised with reference to particular transactions, the form spoken of must necessarily relate to such transaction. Therefore for the application of the proviso to section 9(1) not only the C form should be obtained from the taxing State but it should also be in connection with the purchase of the goods involved in the second sale; (2) that since the assessee had not issued the declarations in form C to the Gujarat seller, the proviso to section 9 did not vest in the State of Madras the jurisdiction to tax the second sale." 5. In view of the amendment made by the Parliament, the question is now rendered academic. Now the right to levy and collect tax in the case of a subsequent sale is given even where the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 could have been obtained. The question No. 1 is therefore, answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 6. Question No. 2 : The point is settled by the decision of their Lordships in Kanpur Vanaspati Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1973] 32 STC 655 (SC), wherein it is held that it is well-settled that no one can challenge the validity of a provision of an Act or rules made thereunder or even a notification issued either under the Act or under the Rules made, before the authorities constituted under the Act. So is the view taken by two Division Benches in Fairdeal Motor's case [1982] 49 STC 164 (MP); (1982) 15 VKN 164 and Noshirwan & Co. case [1982] 49 STC 167 (MP); (1981) 14 VKN 54 . The Tribunal did exceed its jurisdiction in entering upon the question of vires of the notification and holding it to be discriminatory and void. The question No. 2 is also answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 7. References are answered accordingly. No order as to costs. 8. Let a copy each of the order be placed on the records of M.C.C. No. 188 of 1986 and No. 194 of 1986. Reference answered in the negative.