Judgment :- SOMASUNDARAM, J. Writ Appeals Nos. 143 to 149 of 1992, 155 of 1992 and 180 of 1992 arise out of the common order of Kanakaraj, J., dismissing the Writ Petition Nos. 609 of 1992, 607 of 1992, 17596 of 1991, 610 of 1992, 608 of 1992, 606 of 1992, 611 of 1992, 1003 of 1992 and 1098 of 1992, respectively and Writ Appeal No. 197 of 1992 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the W.P. No. 1736 of 1992. The prayer in W.P. No. 1736 of 1992 and in W.P. No. 1098 of 1992, out of which Writ Appeal Nos. 197 of 1992 and 180 of 1992 arise, respectively is for the issue of mandamus directing the respondents herein not to levy, demand, collect and recover sales tax and/or penalties from the appellants in Writ Appeals Nos. 180 of 1992 and 197 of 1992 in respect of the lottery tickets of other States sold by the appellants in Tamil Nadu. The prayer in the other writ petitions out of which the other writ appeals arise is to quash the orders of assessment passed by the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") and for directing the respondents herein not to take any coercive steps to collect the said demand pursuant to the orders of assessment. 2. The appellants in these writ appeals are dealers of raffle tickets of Tamil Nadu as well as the raffle tickets of other States. Pursuant to the Presidential Order dated 27th October, 1971, permitting the Tamil Nadu Government to conduct a State lottery, the Government of Tamil Nadu organised a State lottery, by sponsoring a raffle scheme and framing appropriate Rules in that behalf. The State Government was also then desirous of levying sales tax on the sale of lottery tickets by placing the incidence thereof on every dealer selling such tickets within the State. In order to achieve the above object, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of the powers conferred by section59 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") notified in G.O.P. No. 77 dated 28th January, 1984, inserting an entry 163 in the First Schedule to the Act, whereby lottery tickets were brought within the purview of levy of sales tax. Tax at the rate of 20 per cent was levied on the sale of lottery tickets at the point of first sale in the State. This notification was later replaced by a regular legislative amendment, i.e., Act 14 of 1984. Since the levy of tax at the point of first sale was within the Tamil Nadu State, the first respondent became liable as a result of the Government effecting sale of the lottery tickets to various licensed agents, wholesalers, stockists, etc., as first seller. It is in these circumstances, the Finance Department of the Government issued two Notifications G.O. Ms. Nos. 219 and 224 dated 31st March, 1984 bringing into force certain arrangements whereunder while retaining the sale price of the ticket at its face value, the tax was not passed on to the licensed dealer or to purchaser. The validity and the competence of the levy of tax on the sale of lottery ticket as well as the arrangement made under G.O. Ms. No. 219 dated 31st March, 1984, were challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu upheld competency of the State Government to levy tax on sale of lottery tickets by the Amendment Act as falling within the legislative competence of the concerned State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. While upholding the amendment by which the levy of sales tax on the sale of lottery tickets was imposed the Supreme Court struck down the G.O. Ms. No. 219 dated 31st March, 1984, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on the ground that the said G.O. 219 which in effect granted exemption of sales tax in so far as the purchasers of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets are concerned had to be regarded as directly and immediately hampering free-flow of trade, commerce and intercourse and that the discriminatory treatment in the matter of levying the sales tax on imported lottery tickets which were similar to the one issued by the State Government so as to hamper free-flow of trade, commerce and intercourse was writ large on the face of the impugned notification and as such, the said notification was clearly violative of article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. 3. 3. Even thereafter, the Government continued the exemption of sales tax in so far as the purchasers of the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets are concerned, but imposed tax in so far as the purchasers of the lottery tickets of other States are concerned. In the circumstances, the dealers of raffle tickets in Tamil Nadu including some of the appellants filed the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc. before this Court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9, the first respondent herein, from, levying, demanding or collecting and recovering the sales tax, surcharge on sales tax, additional surcharge and levying penalties and interest whatsoever from the petitioners therein in respect of the raffle tickets of other States sold by them in Tamil Nadu and also to direct the Government to refund the amount of tax collected for the years 1984 to 1987. 4. The petitioners in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch contended that, in spite of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government have been continuing to collect taxes from the petitioners herein in respect of the sale of raffle tickets of other States, which in law, the Government is not entitled to and that the Government is liable to refund the aforesaid amount, as it had been wrongly levied by the State of Tamil Nadu and that the collection of sales tax from the petitioners in respect of sales of lottery tickets of other States, was illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. In the said batch of Writ Petitions, W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc., it was further contended on behalf of the petitioners therein that Notification in G.O. Ms. Nos. 219 and 224 were issued on the same day, that is, 31st March, 1984, and that Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 224 is only a continuation of the Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 219 and therefore when the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu, struck down G.O. Ms. No. 219, G.O. Ms. No. 224 cannot independently stand and should have no force at all. The Division Bench of this Court which disposed of W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc., batch, took the view that G.O. Ms. No. 224 and G.O. Ms. No. 219, G.O. Ms. No. 224 cannot independently stand and should have no force at all. The Division Bench of this Court which disposed of W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc., batch, took the view that G.O. Ms. No. 224 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 dated 7th December, 1987, are only consequential orders and that they cannot have independent existence and therefore, once when the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu, struck down G.O. Ms. No. 219/84, G.O. Ms. 224/84 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 dated 7th December, 1987, also cannot survive and the Government cannot levy sales tax on raffle tickets on the basis of the accounting procedure prescribed under G.O. Ms. No. 224/84 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 dated 7th December, 1987. However, the Division Bench held that the Government of Tamil Nadu is entitled to collect sales tax, according to law and the petitioners therein are not entitled to the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by them. Consequently, the Division Bench by the order dated 20th December, 1990, disposed of W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch in the following terms : "In view of the aforesaid reasons, G.O. Ms. No. 224/84 and 1017/87 will have no legal effect and should be deemed to have been quashed and that the respondent shall not adopt the procedure prescribed thereunder to collect tax on sale of lottery tickets. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent, the State Government, by Amendment Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1984, introduced entry 163 in the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and that the Supreme Court having upheld the validity of levy of sales tax on sales of lottery tickets, the respondent shall be entitled to collect tax according to law. However, the relief of mandamus, which was sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted for the reason that the State Government shall be entitled to collect tax at the rate prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the sales of lottery tickets of Tamil Nadu as well as of other States." 6. After G.O. Ms. No. 219 dated 31st March, 1984 was struck down by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu and G.O. Ms. No. 224 dated 31st March, 1984 and G.O. Ms. After G.O. Ms. No. 219 dated 31st March, 1984 was struck down by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu and G.O. Ms. No. 224 dated 31st March, 1984 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 dated 17th December, 1987 were declared as invalid by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 20th December, 1990, made in W.P. No. 2346 1986 batch, the respondents are apparently proceeding to levy sales tax on the raffle tickets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Though the Division Bench by the order dated 20th December, 1990, made in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch, refused to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear from levy, demand or collecting and recovering the sales tax, surcharge on sales tax, additional surcharge and levying penalties and interest whatsoever from the petitioners therein in respect of the raffle tickets of other states sold by them in Tamil Nadu, the appellants in W.A. No. 189 of 1992 and W.A. No. 197 of 1992 filed Writ Petitions Nos. 1098 of 1992 and 1736 of 1992 seeking the very same relief, namely, for the issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents herein not to levy, demand, collect and recover sales tax and penalties from the appellant in respect of the lottery tickets of other States sold by them in Tamil Nadu. As already pointed out, the other writ petitions out of which the other writ appeals arise were filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the orders of assessment passed by the competent authorities under the Act and for directing the respondents herein not to take any coercive steps to collect the tax pursuant to the orders of assessment passed by the competent authorities. 7. 7. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the writ petitions, it was contended on behalf of the appellants herein that the rule of taxation as laid down by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu has not been followed by the respondents, in view of the fact that even after the judgment of the Supreme Court, the method of assessment adopted by the respondents for levying sales tax in the raffle tickets, results in exemption of the Tamil Nadu Government raffle tickets from paying the tax, while at the same time, the sale of other State raffle tickets suffer tax. It was further urged before the learned single Judge that the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu persists even after the Supreme Court stuck down G.O. Ms. No. 219 and the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc., batch declared that G.O. Ms. No. 224 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 are invalid, by reason of the fact that in the method of assessment adopted by the assessing authorities, the incidence of sales tax on the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets is still not passed on to the purchasers of those lottery tickets, whereas, the incidence of sales tax on raffle tickets of other States is being passed on to the purchasers of such lottery tickets. The learned single Judge took the view that the method of assessment adopted by the assessing authorities subsequently shows that the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu is sought to be avoided by the assessing authorities, and consequently, the learned single Judge refused to countenance the plea of the appellants that the method of assessment adopted by the assessing authorities even after the decision of the Supreme Court in H. Anraj's case, really grants an exemption to the raffle tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government. In the result, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. However, the learned single Judge observed that if the appellants are aggrieved by the assessment orders, they should resort to normal remedies available under the Act. These writ appeals are directed against the said orders of the learned single Judge. 8. Before us, Mr. N. C. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeals Nos. However, the learned single Judge observed that if the appellants are aggrieved by the assessment orders, they should resort to normal remedies available under the Act. These writ appeals are directed against the said orders of the learned single Judge. 8. Before us, Mr. N. C. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeals Nos. 143 to 149 of 1992, Mr. Govindasamynathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 155 of 1992, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 180 of 1992 and Mr. N. R. Chandran, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 197 of 1992 reiterated the very same contentions urged before the learned single Judge and contended that the method of assessment adopted by the respondents results in exemption of the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets from the payment of sales tax while at the same time, the sales of other State lottery tickets suffer tax, and that without passing on the burden of tax imposed on Tamil Nadu raffle tickets to the purchasers of such raffle tickets, no tax can be levied for collected by the Government of Tamil Nadu, on the sales of raffle tickets of other States. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that in the method of assessment adopted by the respondents, the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu still persists in view of the fact that the incidence of sales tax on the Tamil Nadu raffle ticket is still not passed on to the purchasers of those lottery tickets, whereas, the incidence of sales tax on the raffle tickets of other States, is being passed on to the purchasers. The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that so long as the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court continues in the method of assessment adopted by the respondents, the appellants are not liable to pay sales tax on the raffle tickets of other States. We are unable to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. We are unable to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. The Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu has held that the State Government is competent to impose levy of sales tax on the sale of lottery tickets and on that basis upheld the amendments by which the levy of tax on sales of lottery ticket was introduced in the following terms : "In the light of the aforesaid discussion my conclusions are that lottery tickets to the extent that they comprise the entitlement to participate in the draw are 'goods' properly so-called, squarely falling within the definition of that expression as given in the Tamil Nadu Act, 1959 and the Bengal Act, 1941, that to that extent they are not actionable claims and that in every sale thereof a transfer of property in the goods is involved. In view of these conclusions the impugned amendments made in the two concerned Acts for levying tax on sale of lottery tickets will have to be upheld as falling within the legislative competence of the concerned State Legislature under entry 54 of List II in the Seventh Schedule ........" Further, it is not in dispute that the State Government has competence to levy tax on the sale of lottery tickets of the Government of Tamil Nadu as well as the lottery tickets of other States. Again, it is also not in dispute that uniform rate of levy of tax on the sale of lottery tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government as well as the lottery tickets of other States is prescribed. The only question we have to consider in these writ appeals is whether the discrimination as pointed out by the Supreme Court has been removed so that there could be uniform rate of levy of tax not only on the sale of lottery tickets of other States, but also on the sale of raffle tickets of the Government of Tamil Nadu. In other words, the question we have to examine is whether by the method of assessment adopted by the respondents, the incidence of the tax on Tamil Nadu Government raffle tickets is passed on to the purchasers of such tickets or whether the sales of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets are exempted from the payment of sales tax while making the sales of raffle tickets of other States alone suffer tax as contended by the counsel for the appellants. 10. It is seen from the counter-affidavit filed in these writ appeals that subsequent to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch dated 20th December, 1990, when the department took steps to levy and collect sales tax on raffle tickets of other States, one K. A. S. Sekar, one of the lottery ticket dealers moved a contempt application in C.A. No. 82 of 1991 alleging that the department had followed the earlier G.O. Ms. Nos. 219 and 224 dated 31st March, 1984, which have been struck down by the Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 respectively for levying sales tax on the lottery tickets of other States and thereby the respondents in C.A. No. 82 of 1991 disobeyed the order of the Division Bench dated 20th December, 1990, made in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch. By the order dated 28th September, 1991, made in C.A. No. 82 of 1991, the division Bench directed the respondents, to state on affidavit as to what is the rate of tax to be realised on each ticket sold, whether it is a Tamil Nadu lottery ticket or an outstation lottery ticket and also to state as to what is the amount (percentage) of tax that is passed on to the purchasers of the raffle tickets. Pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench, an affidavit sworn by Thiru S. R. Karuppannan, Secretary to Government, Commercial Tax and Religious Endowment Department, Madras, was filed on behalf of the respondents. The relevant portion of the said affidavit runs as follows : "In view of the judgment of this honourable Court, the respondents seek to further state as under : (a) On the first sale value of Tamil Nadu raffle ticket, tax will be imposed at 10 per cent under Sl. The relevant portion of the said affidavit runs as follows : "In view of the judgment of this honourable Court, the respondents seek to further state as under : (a) On the first sale value of Tamil Nadu raffle ticket, tax will be imposed at 10 per cent under Sl. No. 163 of the First Schedule plus surcharge and additional surcharge. On the first sale value of outstation lottery ticket, tax will be imposed at 10 per cent under Sl. No. 163 of the First Schedule along with surcharge and additional surcharge and if the taxable turnover exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs per annum, appropriate additional sales tax will be levied.(b) As per assessments already completed, the respondents have taken the face value of the Tamil Nadu raffle ticket as the gross and allowed the actual discount given at the time of sale to the agents as deduction, to arrive at the net taxable turnover in terms of rule 5-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules read with section2(r) of the said Act. If 20 per cent discount is granted to purchaser on the sale of Tamil Nadu raffle ticket priced at Rs. 100 per hundred tickets, the taxable turnover for the levy of tax on the Tamil Nadu raffle will be Rs. 80 on which sales tax and surcharge have been imposed and realised and will continue to be levied. For the outstation tickets also the face value of the tickets as billed and sold will be taken as gross turnover and the actual discount granted to immediate buyer whatever its quantum, will be taken as a deduction to arrive at the taxable turnover and taxed under Sl. No. 163 of the First Schedule at 10 per cent with surcharge and additional surcharge and additional sales tax as applicable. In both cases, the face value less discount as billed will be construed as inclusive of tax so that there will be no ground for any charge of discrimination. (c) It is respectfully submitted that for Tamil Nadu raffle, if face value of lottery ticket sold in Madras as on date, is Rs. 100 per hundred tickets and a discount of 20 per cent offered to the agent on the sale, the sales tax at 10 percent included in the face value and realised from purchaser is Rs. 8 as tax, Rs. 100 per hundred tickets and a discount of 20 per cent offered to the agent on the sale, the sales tax at 10 percent included in the face value and realised from purchaser is Rs. 8 as tax, Rs. 1.20 paise as surcharge at 15 per cent on the tax due and Re. 0.40 paise as additional surcharge at 5 per cent on the tax due. Equally, if the imported lottery ticket is sold with the same margin of discount, the net tax effect and incidence will be the same to the purchaser." The Division Bench of this Court after referring to para 6 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which is extracted above, by the order dated 4th October, 1991, while dismissing the contempt application in C.A. No. 82 of 1991 observed as follows : "In view of the above, it is obvious that the respondents have proposed to bring down the value of the sale of each lottery ticket at which it is passed on to the dealer and have shown the willingness to grant discount. If it is so calculated, there will be hardly any discrimination and the apprehension of the applicant thus will stand annihilated. It has, however, transpired that the applicant has not worked out his own taxable turnover at such rate as, according to him, tax is leviable upon the sale of Tamil Nadu lottery tickets and thus, has not paid any tax at all. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated, however, that if the respondents would accept such rates as are indicated in their affidavit above quoted, the applicant should have no grievance. He has, however, not conceded anything for the reason that there are several persons who may have their own stand in this regard. We are, however, satisfied that applicant's liability to pay the tax cannot be avoided by not paying the tax rather has been making himself liable to penalty. This should in our opinion, conclude the contempt proceedings." The averments in para 6c of the affidavit filed on behalf of the department in Contempt Application No. 82 of 1991 clearly show that if the face value of the Tamil Nadu raffle ticket sold in Madras as on date is Rs. This should in our opinion, conclude the contempt proceedings." The averments in para 6c of the affidavit filed on behalf of the department in Contempt Application No. 82 of 1991 clearly show that if the face value of the Tamil Nadu raffle ticket sold in Madras as on date is Rs. 100 per hundred tickets and a discount of 20 per cent is offered to the agent on the sale, the sales tax at 10 per cent included in the face value and realised from the purchasers is Rs. 8 as tax, Re. 1.20 as surcharge at 15 per cent on the tax due and Re. 0.40 as additional surcharge at 5 per cent on the tax due. The position will be the same if the imported lottery ticket is sold with the same margin of discount and the net tax effect and the incidence will be the same to the purchaser of the raffle tickets of other States. The above position clearly shows that the tax burden imposed on the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets is passed on to the purchaser on such raffle tickets and that they are not exempted from, payment of sales tax as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 11. Further, it is necessary to refer to the assessment order dated 5th April, 1991, by which the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffle Department was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, in order to appreciate the procedure followed by the department in finalising the assessment and to examine the question whether Tamil nadu raffle tickets are exempted from payment of sales tax as a result of the method of assessment adopted by the respondents as contended on behalf of the appellants. The said assessment order dated 5th April, 1991, reads thus : "The High Court of Madras in its judgment in W.P. Nos. 2346 of 1986 and 2837 of 1988 and others dated 20th December, 1990, has held that G.O. Ms. No. 224, Finance (Raffle) Department dated 31st March, 1984 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017, Finance (Raffle) Department dated 7th December, 1987, will have no legal effect and should be deemed to have been quashed and the respondent-Government shall not adopt the procedure prescribed thereunder. No. 224, Finance (Raffle) Department dated 31st March, 1984 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017, Finance (Raffle) Department dated 7th December, 1987, will have no legal effect and should be deemed to have been quashed and the respondent-Government shall not adopt the procedure prescribed thereunder. Following the above judgment of the Madras High Court the assessment and levy of tax on the Tamil Nadu State lottery tickets is made under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as follows : The Director, Tamil Nadu Raffle, Madras-1, has declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4, 73, 86, 048 in the statement of turnover in form A-10 filed for the year 1985-86. The above turnover was arrived at by the Director in the following method. For the sale value of Rs. 100 the commission of Rs. 16 paid to the agents, was deducted. Then from Rs. 84 the turnover was arrived at Rs. 75.60 after deducting the sales tax at Rs. 7.60, surcharge Re. 0.40 and additional surcharge Re. 0.40. They have paid tax, surcharge, additional surcharge only on Rs. 75.60 basis. The tax has to be paid on the sale value of Rs. 84 only and not on Rs. 75.60 basis. Hence the turnover reported in form A-10 is not acceptable. The sale value of lottery tickets, after deducting the commission paid to the agents is worked out as below :Rs. 4, 73, 86, 042 --------------- X 84.00 = Rs. 5, 26, 51, 164.00 75.60 The above turnover was proposed to be assessed to tax as first sales of lottery tickets. The rate of tax applicable is 20 per cent from 1st April, 1985 to 16th March, 1986 and 10 per cent from 17th March, 1986 to 31st March, 1986, it was proposed to assess to tax at 20 per cent on the entire turnover. It was also proposed to levy surcharge at 5 per cent and additional surcharge at 5 per cent on the tax due. A notice was issued inviting objections, if any, to the above proposals. The Director, in his letter No. 5503/89/E1 dated 4th April, 1991, has stated that he has no objection to assess the sales at Rs. 84.00 per 100 tickets (Re. 1 each sold instead of Rs. 75.60 per 100 tickets. He has also stated that the details of sales from 17th March, 1986 to 31st March, 1986 were not available. The Director, in his letter No. 5503/89/E1 dated 4th April, 1991, has stated that he has no objection to assess the sales at Rs. 84.00 per 100 tickets (Re. 1 each sold instead of Rs. 75.60 per 100 tickets. He has also stated that the details of sales from 17th March, 1986 to 31st March, 1986 were not available. He has filed a revised return declaring the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5, 26, 51, 164 in the statement of turnover in form A10 for the assessment year 1985-86. I, therefore, confirm the proposals as in the notice and finally determine the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 5, 26, 51, 164 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for 1985-86 and assess to tax at 20 per cent. Tax at 20 per cent on Rs. 5, 26, 51, 164 Rs. 1, 05, 30, 233 Tax paid Rs. 24, 66, 324 Balance ... Rs. 80, 63, 909 A notice in form B3 is issued. Surcharge due at 5 per cent on Rs. 5, 26, 512 Rs. 1, 05, 30, 233 Surcharge paid Rs. 60, 233 Balance ... Rs. 4, 66, 279 A notice in form U is issued. Additional surcharge due at 5 per cent on Rs. 1, 05, 30, 233 Rs. 5, 26, 512 Additional surcharge paid Rs. 60, 233 Balance ... Rs. 4, 66, 279 A notice in form U is issued. Sd B. V. Lakshmipathy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade I Assessment Circle.To The Director, Tamil Nadu Raffles Department, 233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras-1. Copy submitted to the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Zone I, Madras-6." A careful reading of the assessment order dated 5th April, 1991, will go to show that the raffle tickets of Tamil Nadu have been taxed on the face value less actual discount given to the immediate agent. In the said assessment order, the assessing authority ultimately assessed the sales at Rs. 84 per hundred tickets (Re. 1 each) instead of Rs. 75.60 per hundred tickets. As already pointed out, the above assessment order will go to show that the raffle tickets of Tamil nadu have been taxed on the face value, less actual discount given to the immediate agent and no further deduction by excluding sales tax was allowed, keeping in mind the fact that G.O. Ms. No. 219/84, G.O. Ms. No. 224/84 and G.O. Ms. No. 219/84, G.O. Ms. No. 224/84 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017/87 have been declared as invalid by the courts. By the said G.Os. it was originally suggested that the Tamil Nadu Government raffle may be taxed excluding not only the discount to the agent, but also the sales tax included therein. However, while completing the assessment, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986, etc., batch, the only exclusion given is the trade discount. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not exempted the Tamil Nadu Government raffle tickets, from the payment of sales tax. On the other hand, the Government of Tamil Nadu is collecting the tax, which is actually passed on to the purchasers of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets. In dealing with the procedure followed by the department while finalising the assessment order dated 5th April, 1991, it is averred in para 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed in Writ Appeal No. 145 of 1992 as follows : "In this regard the respondents state that the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffles Department is assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Assessment Circle, and by assessments completed by the said Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Assessment Circle on 5th April, 1991, against returns submitted by the Director of the Tamil Nadu Raffles for 1983-84 to 1989-90, the raffle tickets of Tamil Nadu have been taxed on the face value less actual discount given to the immediate agent. No further deduction by excluding sales tax was allowed keeping in mind the fact that G.O. Ms. No. 219/84, G.O. Ms. No. 224/84 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017/87 were struck down by courts. By the said G. Os. It was originally suggested that the Tamil Nadu raffle may be taxed excluding not only the discount to the agent but also the sales tax included therein. However, while completing the assessments, the only exclusion given is to the trade discount. In this view it is submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu raffles has not been given any concession or exemption to the sales tax on Tamil Nadu raffle tickets sales. However, while completing the assessments, the only exclusion given is to the trade discount. In this view it is submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu raffles has not been given any concession or exemption to the sales tax on Tamil Nadu raffle tickets sales. The Government is in fact collecting tax which is passed on to the purchasers and paid over to the Commercial Tax Department." The above materials clearly go to show that when a person buys a Tamil Nadu raffle ticket with a face value of Re. 1 and pays Re. 1 being the price of such a raffle ticket, such price of Re. 1 will include the discount offered to the agents, the sales tax, surcharge on the tax due and additional surcharge on the tax due, apart from the base value of the raffle ticket. The above factual position will clearly go to show that the tax burden imposed on the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets is passed on to the purchaser of such raffle tickets and is actually borne by him and that there is no question of granting exemption from payment of tax on sales of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets. Equally, if the imported lottery ticket is sold with the same margin of discount, the net tax effect and incidence will be the same to the purchaser of such imported lottery ticket. 12. From the above factual materials, viz., the order of assessment dated 5th April, 1991, the averments in para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in Contempt Application No. 82 of 1991 and the averments in the supplementary counter-affidavit in Writ Appeal No. 145 of 1992, it is clear that the incidence of tax levied on the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets is passed on to the purchasers of such lottery tickets and that such raffle tickets are not exempted from the payment of sales tax. From this, it also follows that there is uniform rate of levy of tax not only on the sales of raffle tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government, but also on the sale of raffle tickets of other States. From this, it also follows that there is uniform rate of levy of tax not only on the sales of raffle tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government, but also on the sale of raffle tickets of other States. Once when the general rate applicable to the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets and to the raffle tickets imported from other States is same, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, nothing more has to be shown by the State to dispel the argument of discrimination under article 304(a) of the Constitution. Thus, it is clear that the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu for striking down G.O. Ms. No. 219/84 dated March 31, 1984 now stands alleviated by the present procedure adopted by the departmental authorities in finalising the assessment. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch, by the order dated 20th December, 1990, while refusing the identical relief for the issue of mandamus to the appellants and other dealers of raffle tickets held as follows : "It is in the connection, it is considered that the face value of the Tamil Nadu ticket is specified as Re. 1 inclusive of tax. If the face value as indicated in the lottery tickets of other States, is Re. 1 the dealers, agents or sellers have to value the raffle tickets of other States, as inclusive of all taxes payable to the Tamil Nadu Government. If that is so, there cannot be any discriminatory treatment in the levy of tax on the sales of other State lottery tickets and it cannot also be said that the sale of Tamil Nadu lottery tickets is exempted from tax. While so, the petitioners cannot escape their liability to pay tax on sale of lottery tickets of other States on the ground that there is an exemption in so far as the levy of tax on sales of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets are concerned. In fact, it is made available on record that the State has been levying tax on sale of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets by reducing the base value to the extent to which the liability on tax has to be included. In fact, it is made available on record that the State has been levying tax on sale of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets by reducing the base value to the extent to which the liability on tax has to be included. While so, the dealers, sellers, agents, etc., who are effecting sales of other State raffle tickets are liable to pay tax as the Tamil Nadu Government have been paying, but treating the face value of raffle tickets of other States as inclusive of sales tax payable to the Tamil Nadu Government at the rate as levied by the Tamil Nadu Government on the sale of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets." 14. From the above discussion, it is clear that G.O. Ms. No. 219 dated 31st March, 1984 was struck down by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu on the ground that by the said G.O., the State Government granted exemption to its own lottery tickets and levied sales tax on the sale of lottery tickets of other States and therefore, it is discriminatory and violative of article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. For the same reasons, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2346 of 1986 batch, declared that G.O. Ms. Nos. 224 dated 31st March, 1986 and G.O. Ms. No. 1017 dated 7th December, 1987 are invalid. It is seen from the assessment order dated 5th April, 1991 and the averments in para 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed in Writ Appeal No. 145 of 1992 that the said assessment order was passed keeping in mind the fact that G.O. Ms. No. 219/84, 224/84 and 1017/87 were declared as invalid by the courts. Further, on the basis of the materials available on record, we have already found that the respondents have not exempted the Tamil Nadu raffle tickets from payment of tax and that the Government is collecting the sales tax on Tamil Nadu raffles which is actually passed on to the purchasers of such tickets. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the vices of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court stands removed by the present procedure adopted by the respondents in finalising the assessment. 15. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the vices of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court stands removed by the present procedure adopted by the respondents in finalising the assessment. 15. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the procedure followed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department, in finalising the assessment with regard to the levy of sales tax on raffle tickets, results in exemption of Tamil Nadu raffle tickets from the payment of sales tax while at the same time, the sales of the other State lottery tickets suffer tax and therefore, the vice of discrimination pointed out by the Supreme Court still persists, in the method of assessment adopted by the respondents and on that ground they are not liable to pay sales tax on raffle tickets of other States. 16. The orders of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions are correct and we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the learned single Judge warranting interference at our hands in these writ appeals. There is no merit in these writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2, 000 (one set). Writ appeals dismissed.