JUDGMENT S. P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman). - This judgment will govern case Nos. RN-239 (T) of 1989, RN-31 (T) of 1992, RN-351 (T) of 1989, RN-314 of 1990, RN-429 of 1990, RN-432 of 1990 and RN-281 of 1991 as common questions of law was fact are involved in all these cases. Out of these cases, cases Nos. RN-239 (T) of 1989, RN-31 (T) of 1992 and RN-351 (T) of 1989 arise out of applications under article 226 of the Constitution, which have been forwarded to this Tribunal from the High Court, Calcutta, under section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, for disposal. The other four cases arise out of applications under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, which are in the nature of writ petitions. 2. The applicants in all these cases are registered dealers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1941") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. All these cases relate to carpets. In some of these cases such as cases Nos. RN-239 (T) of 1989 and RN 351 (T) of 1989 some assessments and proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, have also been challenged. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is not specified in the Schedule of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. As such, the questions relating to the assessments made or proceedings taken under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the CST Act, 1956", in short) will not be taken up for consideration in this judgment. 3. The case of the applicant, M/s. Samuel Fitze and Company Private Limited in cases Nos. RN-239 (T) of 1989/RN-31 (T) of 1992 is that rule 3 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1941") provides that in calculating the taxable turnover of a registered dealer, the turnover as specified in the sub-rules and clauses therein shall be deducted from the gross turnover. Sales of woollen fabrics were exempted from payment of sales tax under rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 under Notification No. 182-F.T. dated January 19, 1966. Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1941 provides that rates of tax on such part of the taxable turnover as represents sales of goods included in Schedule II of that Act. Sales of woollen fabrics were exempted from payment of sales tax under rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 under Notification No. 182-F.T. dated January 19, 1966. Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1941 provides that rates of tax on such part of the taxable turnover as represents sales of goods included in Schedule II of that Act. Item No. 24 was introduced in Schedule II of the Act of 1941 with effect from November 16, 1967, as a result of which carpets of all varieties and descriptions became exigible to sales tax. Even then, woollen carpets or carpets of all varieties and descriptions were exempted from levy of sales tax under the Act of 1941 because of operation of rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. With effect from April 7, 1975, rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 was amended under Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975 with the result the carpets became exigible to tax. By a judgment delivered on November 13, 1979, his Lordship honourable Mr. Justice Dipak Kumar Sen of the Calcutta High Court held in the case of Madanlal Shroff v. State of West Bengal in C.R. No. 12324 (W) of 1975 [(1980) 13 STA 211] that rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as amended by the Notification Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. both dated April 1, 1975 with effect from April 7, 1975, was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. For the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1978, the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Taltolla Charge, did not accept the claim of the applicant for exemption of sale proceeds of woollen carpets from payment of sales tax under section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act of 1941, read with rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, in spite of this judgment of the High Court, Calcutta, in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal) on the ground that the Government had filed appeal against that judgment and stay had been granted. The applicant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, against the assessment. The appeal is still pending. The applicant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, against the assessment. The appeal is still pending. On December 12, 1982, the respondent No. 1 rejected the claim of the applicant for exemption of the sale proceeds of carpets from payment of sales tax for the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1979, on the ground that the matter of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal) was sub judice before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant preferred an appeal against this order of assessment dated December 12, 1982. The appeal is still pending. Similarly, for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1980, the respondent No. 1 has made assessment without allowing the claim of the applicant for deduction of the sale proceeds of carpets from the taxable turnover under rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. The applicant has received notice in form VII for that assessment for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1980 on December 5, 1984. On December 5, 1984, the applicant has also received notice in form VI under sections 11 and 14(1) of the Act of 1941 for hearing of the assessment case of the applicant on March 12, 1985, for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1981, after the applicant submitted returns for the four quarters ending on December 31, 1981 and on December 31, 1982. The applicant had also filed returns for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1983 and December 31, 1984, on claiming deduction of sale proceeds of carpets from gross turnover. On alleging that the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, has no competence or jurisdiction to issue the notice under sections 11 and 14(1) of the Act of 1941 for the purpose of levying sales tax on sale of woollen carpets, in view of the decision of the High Court, Calcutta, in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211, the applicant filed the writ petition in the High Court, Calcutta, praying for a declaration that rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as amended by the Notifications bearing Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. both dated April 1, 1975 with effect from April 7, 1975, was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and was illegal and invalid. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. both dated April 1, 1975 with effect from April 7, 1975, was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and was illegal and invalid. In the writ petition the applicant has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for cancelling all proceedings taken or purported to be taken under these two notifications dated April 1, 1975 and the notices dated December 5, 1984, issued by the respondent No. 1. The applicant has also prayed for quashing the orders of assessment for the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1978, December 31, 1979, December 31, 1980 and for cancelling all the proceedings for assessments for the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1981, December 31, 1982, December 31, 1983 and December 31, 1984. There is also a prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of prohibition so that the respondents cannot take any step in pursuance of the Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. both dated April 1, 1975. 4. The case of the applicant in case No. RN-351 (T) of 1989 is that the applicant-firm is a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. G. P. Gupta and Company. The grievance of the applicant is the same as in the case of M/s. Samuel Fitze and Company Private Limited. On apprehending from talks held with the respondent No. 4, the Commercial Tax Officer, Taltolla Charge, in the course of hearing for issuance of declaration forms, that woollen carpets sold by the applicant during the periods of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981 to June 30, 1984 would be taxable, the applicant filed the writ petition in the High Court, Calcutta, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for cancelling or withdrawing any proceeding taken or purported to be taken under Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T., both dated April 1, 1975 and all proceedings for assessments under the Act of 1941 for the periods of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981 to June 30, 1984, as well as a notice dated June 28, 1984, in form VI for assessment for the period of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T., both dated April 1, 1975 and all proceedings for assessments under the Act of 1941 for the periods of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981 to June 30, 1984, as well as a notice dated June 28, 1984, in form VI for assessment for the period of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981. There is also a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition so that the respondents cannot give any effect to the Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T., both dated April 1, 1975. 5. The applicants in cases Nos. RN-314 of 1990 and RN-429 of 1990 are the same. They carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Bhalla's Carpet at 45, Park Street, Calcutta. Their case is that with a view to achieve the object of making trade, commerce and intercourse free throughout the territory of India, in accordance with articles 301 and 286 of the Constitution of India, certain goods were declared to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce in section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 and restrictions and conditions with regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State were imposed by section 15 of the CST Act, 1956. When the Central Sales Tax Act was promulgated, woollen fabrics were not included in section 14 of that Act of 1956. With effect from October 1, 1958, woollen fabrics was included in section 14 of that Act of 1956, in sub-clause (x) of that section. Instead of quoting the entire definition and description of "woollen fabrics" declared as goods of special importance, "woollen fabrics" were described in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 as "woollen fabrics, as defined in item No. 12B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)". In 1961, the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the CES Act, 1944", for the sake of brevity) was amended and item No. 12B of the First Schedule to that Act of 1944 became item No. 21. In conformity with such amendment, section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, was amended by inserting item No. 21 in place of item 12B of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. Such substitution was made on the principle of incorporation by reference. In conformity with such amendment, section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, was amended by inserting item No. 21 in place of item 12B of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. Such substitution was made on the principle of incorporation by reference. Subsequently the definition of woollen fabrics, as mentioned in item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, was amended. There was, however, no subsequent amendment of section 14(x) of the Act of 1956. Though originally there was no explanation to item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, Explanations I and II were added subsequently to that item 21 by various amendments. Thereafter, Explanation III was inserted in item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, in 1979 to the effect that woollen fabrics, as mentioned in item 21, did not include floor covering, falling under item 22G. Item 22G of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, related to floor coverings, namely, carpets, carpeting and rugs. Such amendments of item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, did not lead to amendment of section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, with the result that the definition of "woollen fabrics", as it stood originally with effect from 1961, continued. In the appeal against the judgment of honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal), the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 construed the meaning of woollen fabrics in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, as woollen carpets made wholly of wool or containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool and declared that such woollen carpets would be exigible to tax at a rate not exceeding the maximum prescribed under section 15(a) read with section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, i.e., at 4 per cent under the Act of 1941. The contention of the applicants in case No. RN-314 of 1990 is that in spite of this decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court a circular, being Circular No. 4936 (125) C.T. dated March 28, 1990, was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, stating that there was no bar to treat woollen carpets, irrespective of percentage of wool contents, as exigible to tax at 11 per cent. The applicants have challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, to issue such a circular. According to the applicants in case No. RN-314 of 1990, the concerned Commercial Tax Officer, Park Street Charge, made an assessment on February 6, 1989, in respect of the applicants for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1985. On March 14, 1990, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, passed an appellate order in respect of the applicants for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1983 to the effect that carpets should be exigible to tax at the rate of 4 per cent because of the judgment of the High Court, Calcutta. Assessments are also being made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer, Park Street Charge, in respect of the applicants with regard to carpets at the rate of 4 per cent for the assessment years 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85. On the basis of the circular dated March 28, 1990 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the applicants received two notices for reopening of assessments for the periods of four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1985. The applicants in case No. RN-314 of 1990 have prayed for quashing of the circular dated March 28, 1990, as well as quashing of these notices dated April 6, 1990 and June 6, 1990, for reopening of the assessments for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1985. They have also prayed for declaration, a writ in the nature of prohibition and an order of injunction so that the respondents cannot assess, levy and collect tax on handmade woollen carpets, without jute backing, containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool, at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 6. They have also prayed for declaration, a writ in the nature of prohibition and an order of injunction so that the respondents cannot assess, levy and collect tax on handmade woollen carpets, without jute backing, containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool, at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 6. The grievances of the applicants in case No. RN-429 of 1990 are the same as in their case No. RN-314 of 1990. In case No. RN-429 of 1990 there was an assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1983 by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer in respect of carpets at the rate of 15 per cent on March 18, 1987. This rate of tax was reduced from 15 per cent to 4 per cent by an appellate order dated March 14, 1990, by the respondent No. 3, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, because of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court. Subsequently, a notice in form IX under rule 79 of the Rules of 1941 was issued by the respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, on September 5, 1990, for reviewing his appellate order dated March 14, 1990, because of omission of carpets from item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, by the amendment in 1979. By an order passed on October 30, 1990, the respondent No. 3 reviewed his appellate order dated March 14, 1990 and imposed tax on carpets at 15 per cent. The applicants have challenged this order of the respondent No. 3 and have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for assessing tax in respect of carpets as per the Division Bench decision of the High Court, Calcutta, and for not assessing them to tax in respect of carpets at a rate more than 4 per cent. As in case No. RN-314 of 1990, the applicants have prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition and an injunction so that the respondents cannot assess, levy or collect sales tax from the applicants on sale of woollen carpets at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 7. The applicant in cases Nos. As in case No. RN-314 of 1990, the applicants have prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition and an injunction so that the respondents cannot assess, levy or collect sales tax from the applicants on sale of woollen carpets at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 7. The applicant in cases Nos. RN-432 of 1990 and 281 of 1991 is Shri Surinder Singh, who carries on a proprietorship business of purchase and sale of woollen carpets under the name and style of Delstar Carpet Cleaning Company, having its head office at 5, Russel Street, Calcutta. The case of this applicant is that sale of such carpets will be exigible to tax at 4 per cent. The case of the applicant on this score is alike the case of the applicants in cases Nos. RN-314 of 1990 and RN-429 of 1990. For the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981, there was an order of remand by the appellate authority in the light of the judgment of High Lordship honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal) and thereafter the assessments of the applicant in respect of sale of carpets for these years was reduced to zero per cent on reassessment and the excess payment made by the applicant for these periods was ordered to be refunded by the Commercial Tax Officer. For the subsequent periods of 1981-82 and 1982-83 assessments were made at zero per cent by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. In respect of assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1984, the applicant preferred an appeal against an order of assessment dated April 30, 1988 passed by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. Though the appeal is pending, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta South Circle, issued a notice on October 23, 1990 in form IX under rule 79 of the Rules of 1941, proposing to review the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on the ground that the concerned Commercial Tax Officer allowed the claim of the applicant in respect of woollen carpets under rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 on the basis of the judgment of His Lordship honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal). Justice D. K. Sen in the case of Madanlal Shroff (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal). The notice was issued on the ground that carpets and floor coverings had been omitted from item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, by an amendment of item 21 in 1979 and hence the applicant would not get protection of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal). In that notice it was stated that the applicant was liable to pay tax at the rate of 15 per cent on the entire sale of woollen carpets to unregistered dealers for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1984. Being aggrieved, on receipt of this notice in form IX dated October 23, 1990, the applicant has filed case No. RN-432 of 1990 and has prayed for quashing the notice dated October 23, 1990, as well as for issuing a writ in the nature of prohibition and an order of injunction so that the respondents cannot assess, levy or collect sales tax on sale of woollen carpets at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 8. The case of the applicant, Surinder Singh, in case No. RN-281 of 1991 is that though the sale of hand-knitted carpets, hand-tufted carpets and hand-woven pile carpets cannot be exigible to tax at a rate more than 4 per cent prescribed under section 14(x) read with section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956, there has been an assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1987, imposing tax on sale of woollen carpets at a rate of 11 per cent. The applicant has prayed for quashing such assessment in case No. 77(D)/90-91 and has also prayed for writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus so that the respondents cannot levy or collect sales tax at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. 9. The respondents contest these cases by filing separate affidavits-in-opposition. With the permission of this Tribunal, they have filed supplementary affidavits-in-opposition in cases Nos. RN-31 (T) of 1992/RN-239 (T) of 1989 and RN-351 (T) of 1989. The case of the respondents in the affidavits-in-opposition and the supplementary affidavits-in-opposition filed in all these cases is the same. 9. The respondents contest these cases by filing separate affidavits-in-opposition. With the permission of this Tribunal, they have filed supplementary affidavits-in-opposition in cases Nos. RN-31 (T) of 1992/RN-239 (T) of 1989 and RN-351 (T) of 1989. The case of the respondents in the affidavits-in-opposition and the supplementary affidavits-in-opposition filed in all these cases is the same. The case of the respondents is that woollen carpets resold by the applicants are commodities covered under item 24 in Schedule II of the Act of 1941 and is not covered by clause (x) of section 14 of the CST Act, 1956. As such, sales of woollen carpets are exigible to tax at the rate of 15 per cent. Previously there was no dispute regarding taxability of carpets under the Act of 1941 as blanket exemption on sales of such goods had been granted by clause (28) of rule 3 of the Rules of 1941 on the basis of Notification No. 182-F.T. dated January 19, 1966. Though carpets of all varieties and descriptions were thereafter included in item No. 24 in Schedule II of the Act of 1941 with effect from November 16, 1967 for imposing tax at the rate of 15 per cent on sale of woollen carpets, this inclusion of item No. 24 in the Schedule II of the Act of 1941 did not have any effect regarding exigibility of woollen carpets to tax, in view of the provisions of rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. Later on, rule 3(28) was amended under Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975. As a result of the amendment, which was made effective from April 7, 1975, sales of carpets became exigible to tax by expressly excluding carpets from rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. Carpets of all varieties and descriptions became taxable at the rate of 15 per cent with effect from April 7, 1975. In the case of Madanlal Shroff v. State of West Bengal (1980) 13 STA 211, honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen of the Calcutta High Court held that the Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, under which carpets were expressly excluded from the commodities mentioned in rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, was ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. Justice D. K. Sen of the Calcutta High Court held that the Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, under which carpets were expressly excluded from the commodities mentioned in rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, was ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. On an appeal by the State Government against that judgment, it was decided by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in [1989] 72 STC 56 (State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff) that the State Government was competent to amend, alter and modify rule 3, as done under Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975. Their Lordships were further pleased to hold in that case that in the event such carpets contained more than 40 per cent of wool by weight, the State could not levy tax at a rate exceeding 4 per cent, as provided in sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act, 1956. The respondents have challenged this view of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that if the woollen carpets contained more than 40 per cent of wool by weight, the same was to be treated as goods declared under section 14 of the CST Act, 1956, with the result that the State could not levy tax at a rate more than 4 per cent. According to the respondents, the relevant amendments were not placed before their Lordships at the time of hearing of that case by the Division Bench. The respondents contend that Parliament enacted clause (x) of section 14 of the CST Act, 1956, by referring to item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. Item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 which was referred to as a definition of "woollen fabrics" in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 suffered a series of amendments during the periods from 1977 to 1979. In 1979, Explanation III was inserted in item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 with the result that floor coverings, falling under item No. 22G in that Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, was excluded. Floor coverings in item 22G meant carpets, carpeting and rugs. As Explanation III in item 21 of the First Schedule excluded floor coverings, meaning also carpets, carpets became exigible to tax at 15 per cent. Floor coverings in item 22G meant carpets, carpeting and rugs. As Explanation III in item 21 of the First Schedule excluded floor coverings, meaning also carpets, carpets became exigible to tax at 15 per cent. These amendments made in the CES Act, 1944, were not placed before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by the contesting parties, while delivering the judgment in the case of State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465. The respondents contend that as the law relating to woollen fabrics was incorporated by reference to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, woollen carpets became exigible to tax at the rate of 15 per cent after insertion of Explanation III to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. The applicants have filed affidavits-in-reply in each of these cases. 10. The point for decision is whether carpets resold by the applicants are "declared goods" as defined and narrated in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 and sales of these carpets are taxable at the rate of 4 per cent subject to the restrictions and conditions of section 15 of the CST Act, 1956 or it is a commodity described described is item 24 of Schedule II to the Act of 1941. According to the applicants, the carpets resold by them are nothing but "declared goods" being "woollen fabrics" and sale of the same is taxable at 4 per cent ad valorem. According to the Revenue, carpets of all varieties and descriptions including those resold by the applicants are nothing but goods as mentioned in item 24 of Schedule II to the Act of 1941 and that sale of such goods attracts higher rate of tax in terms of the provisions of section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1941. In order to arrive at a decision on this question, several provisions in several Acts and Rules are to be considered. The relevant Acts and Rules are the Act of 1941, the Rules of 1941, the CST Act, 1956, the CES Act, 1944 and the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the CET Act, 1985", for the sake of brevity). The relevant Acts and Rules are the Act of 1941, the Rules of 1941, the CST Act, 1956, the CES Act, 1944 and the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the CET Act, 1985", for the sake of brevity). Section 5(2) of the Act of 1941 is to the following effect : "5(2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means, in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax, that part of his gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom - (a) his turnover during that period on - (vi) Such other sales as may be prescribed; and ............" Rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, as substituted by Notification No. 182-F.T. dated January 19, 1966, stood as follows : "3(28)(a) Sales of cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics and tobacco, other than cigarettes; (b) Sales of cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics and woollen fabrics when dyed or printed after they come out of the mill/loom; (c) Sales of mill-made cotton fabrics embroidered after they come out of the mill/loom : Explanation. - In this clause, Explanation 'cotton fabrics', 'rayon or artificial silk fabrics', 'woollen fabrics' and 'tobacco' respectively, have the same meaning as in items 19, 22, 21 and 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." Rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as amended by Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, with effect from April 7, 1975, stood as follows : "3(28)(a) Sales of all varieties of textile fabrics (other than satranchi, carpets and druggets) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple fibre, rayon, artificial silk or wool including handkerchiefs, towels, bedsheets, bedspreads, table cloths, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets, and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces. ..............." Rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 was omitted with effect from June 1, 1987, by Notification No. 1794-FT dated June 1, 1987. Chapter IV of the CST Act, 1956 deals with goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 during the period from October 1, 1958 to 1961 stood as follows, as regards clause (x) to that section : "14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Chapter IV of the CST Act, 1956 deals with goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 during the period from October 1, 1958 to 1961 stood as follows, as regards clause (x) to that section : "14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. - It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce : (x) Woollen fabrics, as defined in item No. 12B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944);" Consequential to the substitution of some figures in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 and amendment to that Act by the Finance Act, 1961 the figure "21" in the items of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was substituted for the figure "12B" on and from April 29, 1961. 11. Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1941 provides for the rates of tax on such part of the taxable turnover as represents sales of goods included in Schedule II to that Act. With effect from November 16, 1967, item No. 24 was inserted in Schedule II to that Act to the following effect : "24. Carpets of all varieties and descriptions." Initially "woollen fabrics" was defined in item 12B in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. With effect from November 16, 1967, item No. 24 was inserted in Schedule II to that Act to the following effect : "24. Carpets of all varieties and descriptions." Initially "woollen fabrics" was defined in item 12B in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. By Finance Act, 1961 item 12B of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, was renumbered as item 21 which stood as follows : "'Woollen fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured wholly of wool or which contain 40 per cent or more by weight of wool and includes blankets, lohis, rugs and shawl." With effect from August 8, 1977, item 21 in the First Schedule of the CES Act, 1944 was amended as follows : "'Woollen fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics in which wool predominates in weight or which contain more than 30 per cent of wool and 50 per cent or more of non-cellulosic fibre or yarn or both : Provided that in the case of embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs such predominance or percentages, as the case may be, shall be in relation to the base fabrics which are embroidered - (1) Woollen fabrics, other than embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs - Basic duty Additional Handloom duty cess (a) Woollen fabrics not 12 per cent subjected to any ad valorem process (b) Woollen fabrics 12 per cent subjected to the ad valorem process of milling, raising, blowing, tentering, dyeing or any other process or any two or more of these processes (2) embroidery in the The duty for The duty for The duty piece, in strips or the time the time for the in motifs, in or in being being time relation to the leviable on leviable on being manufacture of which the base the base leviable any process is fabrics, if fabrics, if on the ordinarily carried on not already not already base with the aid of power. paid plus 20 paid fabrics, per cent ad if not valorem already paid." There was at first no explanation to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. paid plus 20 paid fabrics, per cent ad if not valorem already paid." There was at first no explanation to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. On and from August 8, 1977, Explanations I and II were inserted in item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 to the following effect : "Explanation I. - 'Base fabrics' means fabrics falling in sub-item (1) of this item which are subjected to the process of embroidery". "Explanation II. - Explanation II under item No. 19 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to this item as it applies in relation to that item." In 1979 Explanation III was inserted in item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. It runs as follows : "Explanation III. - This item does not include floor coverings falling under item 22G." Item 22G runs as follows : "22G. Floor coverings, namely :- Carpets, carpeting and rugs (made up or not). Thirty per cent ad valorem Explanation I. - This item does not include dari, sataranji, namdahs, jute carpets and coir carpets. Explanation II. This item shall include carpets, carpeting and rugs having the characteristics of floor coverings but intended for use for any other purpose whatsoever." On and from February 28, 1986, by the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 ("the CET Act, 1985", in short) the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, was omitted. Section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985, runs as follows : "4(2) Any reference to the expression 'First Schedule' to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in any Central Act, shall on and after the commencement of this Act, be construed as a reference to the Schedule to this Act." Section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 was, however, amended from May 13, 1988 by incorporating some headings in the Schedule of the CET Act, 1985, in place of item 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. 12. Mr. Nahar, the learned Advocate for the applicants, in cases Nos. RN-31 (T) of 1992 and RN-351 (T) of 1989 accepted the arguments by Mr. Somen Bose, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants in the other four cases, viz., cases Nos. RN-314 of 1990, RN-429 of 1990, RN-432 of 1990 and RN-281 of 1991. Mr. 12. Mr. Nahar, the learned Advocate for the applicants, in cases Nos. RN-31 (T) of 1992 and RN-351 (T) of 1989 accepted the arguments by Mr. Somen Bose, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants in the other four cases, viz., cases Nos. RN-314 of 1990, RN-429 of 1990, RN-432 of 1990 and RN-281 of 1991. Mr. Somen Bose, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, in these four cases traced the source of articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution from the debates of the Constituent Assembly in relation to article 264A of the Draft Constitution and contended that by enacting the CST Act, 1956, Parliament declared some goods to be of special importance for ensuring free-flow of trade. The restrictions imposed by section 15 of the CST Act, 1956, were enacted in pursuance of the provisions of article 286(3) of the Constitution. There was no tax on carpets in West Bengal under rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 read with section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act of 1941 as additional duties of excise were imposed on certain goods for distribution of a part of the net proceeds thereof among the States. Mr. Bose contends that this proposal to levy additional duties of excise on certain goods, upon an agreement with different States, was part and parcel of a scheme under which sales tax levied by the States on certain goods was intended to be compensated by the levy of additional duties of excise on such goods, if the States agreed not to levy sales tax on these goods. Mr. Bose contends that on a scrutiny of the provisions in rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 read with section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act of 1941 and the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, it cannot be stated that prior to issuance of Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, which came into effect from April 7, 1975, amending rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 by excluding satranchi, carpets and druggets from the purview of textile fabrics, there was any tax on carpets. This contention cannot be accepted. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, which came into effect from April 7, 1975, amending rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 by excluding satranchi, carpets and druggets from the purview of textile fabrics, there was any tax on carpets. This contention cannot be accepted. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. [1989] 73 STC 216 that the meaning ascribed to a notification by the authority issuing a notification is a good guide for the position of law. The duty of enforcing the provisions of the Act of 1941 and the Rules of 1941 lies with the Directorate of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. As already stated, though rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 exempted sales of woollen fabrics from gross turnover, item 24 was inserted in Schedule II to the Act of 1941 as a result of which carpets of all varieties and descriptions became exigible to tax with effect from November 16, 1967. Naturally there were queries with regard to taxability as well as rate of tax in respect of different kinds of carpets, in view of the provisions in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 and section 15 of that Act. On December 28, 1968 the following trade circular No. 4/68 was issued by the Directorate of Commercial Taxes - "This Directorate has been, for some time past, receiving queries from dealers in regard to taxability as well as rate of tax in respect of different kinds of carpets. It is, therefore, clarified for the benefit of the dealers that the Commissioner is of the opinion that : (1) Jute matting and jute carpets are covered by the entry 'carpets of all varieties and descriptions' appearing in item 24 of Schedule II appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and hence sales thereof should attract tax at 12 per cent ad valorem under that Act; (2) Sales of cotton carpets and woollen carpets should merit exemption from tax under section 5(2)(a)(iv) ibid read with rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. But such exemption does not apply in respect of sales of - (a) Handloom woven cotton carpets, when embroidered after they have come out of the loom; (b) Mill-made and handloom woven woollen carpets when embroidered after they have come out of the mill or loom. But such exemption does not apply in respect of sales of - (a) Handloom woven cotton carpets, when embroidered after they have come out of the loom; (b) Mill-made and handloom woven woollen carpets when embroidered after they have come out of the mill or loom. The appropriate rate of tax in respect of such taxable varieties of cotton and woollen carpets should be 12 per cent ad valorem under the said Act. The above opinion is, however, subject to any decision of any judicial forum on the subject." This trade circular No. 4/68 dated December 28, 1968 shows that jute matting, jute carpets and embroidered handloom woven cotton carpets and embroidered mill-made and handloom woven woollen carpets were made exigible to tax under item 24 in Schedule II of the Act of 1941 read with rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. 13. Section 15 of the CST Act, 1956 came into force with effect from October 1, 1958. Even before section 15 of the CST Act, 1956, was brought into force, the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 ("the 1957 Act", in short), was passed to provide for levy and collection of additional duties of excise on certain goods and for the distribution of a part of the net proceeds thereof among the States. This proposal to levy additional duties of excise on certain goods was a part and parcel of an integrated scheme under which sales tax levied by different States at different rates on certain goods was ultimately substituted by additional duties of excise on such goods and the States were compensated by payment of part of the net proceeds of the additional duty on such goods. Originally, the 1957 Act levied additional excise duty on sugar, tobacco, cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk and woollen fabrics, these goods having the meanings respectively assigned to them in items 8, 9, 12, 12A and 12B (changed subsequently as items Nos. 1, 4, 19, 21 and 22 respectively) of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. The levy of additional excise duty on these goods did not preclude the State Legislatures from levying any sales tax, provided such levy was in accordance with the restrictions contained in the CST Act, 1956. 1, 4, 19, 21 and 22 respectively) of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. The levy of additional excise duty on these goods did not preclude the State Legislatures from levying any sales tax, provided such levy was in accordance with the restrictions contained in the CST Act, 1956. By levying sales tax on an item covered by the Schedule to the 1957 Act, the State was to forgo its share on distribution of the proceeds of the additional excise duty levied on such item. It was for the State Legislature to determine whether it should impose sales tax on an item of declared goods, limited by the restrictions in section 15 of the CST Act, 1956 and at the risk of losing a share in the additional excise duty levied in respect of these items. When, in exercise of this discretion, the State of West Bengal made jute carpet, jute matting and embroidered handloom woven cotton carpets and embroidered mill-made and handloom woven woollen carpets exigible to tax by inserting item 24 in Schedule II to the Act of 1941, it cannot be at all stated that because of the operation of the 1957 Act, there was no tax in West Bengal on any variety of woollen carpets, prior to issuance of the Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975. 14. These Notifications Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, were the subject-matter of a writ petition in the High Court, Calcutta in the case of Madanlal Shroff v. State of West Bengal (1980) 13 STA 211. It was held by honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in that case that carpets were woollen fabrics and hence there was no escape from the consequences which followed from sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act, 1956. In other words, it was held in that case that woollen carpets would be exigible to tax at 4 per cent, as mentioned in section 15 of the CST Act, 1956. The notifications amending rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 were declared ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature by honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in that case. The notifications amending rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 were declared ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature by honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in that case. On an appeal by the State of West Bengal against that decision, it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 that though the State Government was competent to issue the impugned Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975, amending rule 3(28) of the Rules 1941, as a result of which sale of woollen carpets became taxable, the rate of tax on woollen carpets was not to exceed the maximum prescribed by section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956. It was held by the Division Bench in that case that the scope of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, could not be limited to carpets manufactured only by weaving of woollen threads. Woollen carpets made wholly of wool or containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool were declared by the Division Bench to be goods of special importance under section 14 of the CST Act, 1956, read with item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. It was further held in that case that unless the method of manufacture resulted in production of a commodity which was commonly considered as different from a carpet, the process of manufacture would not be germane. The contention by some of the applicants in some of the cases, viz., cases Nos. RN-314 of 1990, RN-429 of 1990, RN-432 of 1990 and RN-281 of 1991 that they deal with hand-made, hand-tufted and hand-knitted woollen carpets, which are exempted from tax, cannot be accepted on the basis of this Division Bench decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) to the effect that neither the process of manufacture nor application or use of the product would be decisive and that what would be relevant would be whether the product was manufactured wholly of wool or it contained 40 per cent or more by weight of wool and secondly whether the finished product was commonly considered as a carpet. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Somen Bose, the learned Senior Advocate for some of the applicants has contended that this judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) should be followed by the Revenue till May 12, 1988, up to which date section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 remained unamended in spite of amendments of the CES Act, 1944 in 1977 and 1979 and the operation of section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985. As already stated, item No. 12B of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, as mentioned at first in section 14(x) of the Act of 1956, was changed to item No. 21 in 1961. The contention of Mr. Somen Bose that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case reported in [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (State of West Bengal v. Madanlal Shroff) should hold the field till May 12, 1988, consists of several parts. The first contention in this regard is that this Tribunal accepted the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as holding the field and the Revenue also accepted this judgment for determination of tax and the rate of tax on woollen carpets, being woollen fabrics under section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 and the Revenue cannot be permitted to say anything to the contrary now. The second contention is that Explanation III inserted in item No. 21 of the CES Act, 1944 in 1979 can have no application on the basis of the doctrine of contemporaneous exposition. The third contention is that Explanation III to item No. 21 of the CES Act, 1944 was meant only for machine-made carpets and not hand-made, hand-tufted and hand-knitted woollen carpets. The last contention in this regard is that exemption by way of providing for tax at the rate of 4 per cent under section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956 was given to the applicants on the basis of item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 which continued unamended from 1961 to May 12, 1988 and that this exemption cannot be taken away by issuing a trade circular dated March 28, 1990. 16. 16. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) was followed by the Revenue as well as by this Tribunal not only up to May 12, 1988, but even thereafter. In C.R. No. 8055 (W) of 1982 (R. L. Chopra v. State of West Bengal) an interim order was passed by honourable Mr. Justice G. N. Ray (as His Lordship then was) on August 17, 1982, directing the respondents in that case to issue declaration forms to the applicants both under the Act of 1941 and the CST Act, 1956 on payment of sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent along with the return of the applicants, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Subsequently, after the record of that C.R. No. 8055 (W) of 1982 was forwarded to this Tribunal from the High Court, Calcutta, for disposal under section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and the case was registered in this Tribunal as RN-125 (T) of 1990, an order was passed by this Tribunal on August 17, 1990, directing the respondents to make assessments for the impugned period relating to four quarters ending in March, 1977, on the basis of the decision reported in [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal), viz., the Division Bench decision in the case of Madanlal Shroff. This order was passed by this Tribunal as it was not disputed before this Tribunal on August 17, 1990 that the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) held the field. Similarly, Matter No. 4177 of 1987 in the High Court, Calcutta (B. D. Kuller v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal) was forwarded to this Tribunal under section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and was registered as case No. RN-377 (T) of 1989. That case No. RN-377 (T) of 1989 was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order passed on February 1, 1990. That case No. RN-377 (T) of 1989 was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order passed on February 1, 1990. By that order the assessments in connection with RN-379 (T) of 1989 and RN-377 (T) of 1989 for the assessment periods relating to 1978-79 and ending with March 31, 1979 and the assessment period relating to 1979-80 and ending with March 31, 1980, respectively were set aside and the matter relating to assessments for these impugned periods was remitted back to the concerned Commercial Tax Officer for making fresh assessments in the light of some observations made by the appellate authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Appeal Cases Nos. A 1501 and A 1502 of 1983-84. In these Appeal Cases Nos. A 1501 and A 1502 of 1983-84, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order on August 21, 1986, directing the concerned Commercial Tax Officer to ascertain the nature of the goods sold by the applicants before determining the rate of tax. In that order dated August 21, 1986, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes found that the learned Commercial Tax Officer did not make any discussion regarding the nature of the goods sold by the applicant on which tax at the rate of 15 per cent was charged. By drawing our attention to these orders passed by this Tribunal in cases Nos. RN-125 (T) of 1990 and RN-377 (T) of 1989, Mr. Somen Bose has contended that when even on August 17, 1990, this Tribunal took the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) as holding the field, the applicants should not be deprived of the benefit of the rate of tax at 4 per cent at least up to May 12, 1988, before amendment of section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 with effect from May 13, 1988. It is no doubt true that two of my learned brothers were parties to the aforesaid two decisions of this Tribunal in cases Nos. RN-125 (T) of 1990 and RN-377 (T) of 1989. It is no doubt true that two of my learned brothers were parties to the aforesaid two decisions of this Tribunal in cases Nos. RN-125 (T) of 1990 and RN-377 (T) of 1989. The fact, however, remains that the insertion of Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, by the amendment in 1979 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court when the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) was disposed of by the Division Bench on March 6, 1987. It is not known as to whether the non-mention of insertion of Explanation III to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 or non-mention of item No. 22G in the First Schedule to that CES Act, 1944, as a result of the amendments of the CES Act, 1944 in 1979 was due to the fact that that case related to an assessment for a period prior to the amendment of the CES Act of 1944 in 1979. As already stated, the Division Bench decision arose out of the single Bench decision by honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen in Civil Rule No. 12324 (W) of 1975 (Madanlal Shroff v. State of West Bengal (1980) 13 STA 211 (Cal) which was disposed of by honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Sen on November 13, 1979. It may be that as the Division Bench decision related to an assessment for a period prior to the amendment of the CES Act, 1944, in 1979, the insertion of Explanation III to item No. 21 or the insertion of a new item No. 22G in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, was not mentioned before the Division Bench. It may also be that these facts were either overlooked or not known to the authorities. Whatever may be the reason for non-mention of Explanation III to item No. 21 or/and item No. 22G in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in the Division Bench judgment, the Division Bench judgment in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) should not be followed on account of this omission. 17. 17. The recent view for invoking the doctrine of contemporaneous exposition appears to be that the doctrine is to be applied only to the construction of ambiguous language in very old statutes. This doctrine can have no application to a modern Act (see Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition at page 269), unless the modern Act is subjected to judicial decisions. As Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to that Act was not at all considered by the Division Bench in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal), it cannot at all be stated the Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 will have no application on invoking the doctrine of contemporaneous exposition. The doctrine of contemporaneous exposition should not be confused with something quite different, viz., the undesirability of disturbing a settled construction. This aspect of these cases will be considered in due course. 18. The contention that Explanation III to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was meant only for machine-made carpets and not hand-made, hand-tufted and hand-knitted woollen carpets cannot be accepted. This contention has been made on the basis of the budget speech of the Finance Minister, as published in 1979 ELT. Volume 3, page 48 at para 134, which is as follows : "Machine-made carpets produced a few organised units constitute as item of elite consumption. I can see no justification for encouraging this line of production, when we have a large number of traditional carpet weavers whose skills have owned international renown. I would not like the livelihood of these weavers to be threatened by the proliferation of machine-made carpets. I, therefore, propose to impose a duty of 30 per cent on such machine-made carpets. Hand-made carpets will be totally exempt from the levy." In pursuance of this budget speech, item 22G was inserted in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, fixing excise duty at 30 per cent ad valorem on floor coverings, namely, carpets, carpeting and rugs, though not including dari, sataranji, namdahs, jute carpets and coir carpets. Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was to the effect that it did not include floor coverings falling under item No. 22G. Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was to the effect that it did not include floor coverings falling under item No. 22G. Jute carpets and coir carpets were left out of the purview of the item No. 22G. As already discussed with reference to trade circular No. 4/68 dated December 28, 1968, jute matting, jute carpets and embroidered handloom woven cotton carpets and embroidered mill-made and handloom woven woollen carpets were made exigible to tax in West Bengal under item 24 in Schedule II to the Act of 1941 read with rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 on and from November 16, 1967. It has also been shown, by referring to the amendment of rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 with effect from April 7, 1975, that since April 7, 1975 sataranji, carpets and druggets did not qualify for exemption from payment of tax under rule 3(28)(a) of the Rule of 1941 read with section 5(2)(a)(iv) (since omitted) of the Act of 1941. Woollen carpets were taken to be woollen fabrics in the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) whether or not they were hand-made or hand-tufted or hand-knitted woollen carpets, under item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944. The applicants want us to follow this decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal). If that decision is to be followed, as contended by the applicants, it cannot at all be stated that Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was meant only for machine-made carpets and not other types of carpets. 19. At the time of insertion of clause (x) in section 14 of the CST Act, 1956, section 14(x) of that Act stood as follows : "Woollen fabrics, as defined in item No. 12B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." Specification of item in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 was changed to item 21 by an amendment in 1961. Section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 thereafter stood as follows on and from April 29, 1961 : "Woollen fabrics as defined in item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." Section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985 was to the effect that any reference to the Expression "First Schedule" to the CES Act, 1944 in any Central Act would, on and after the commencement of the CET Act, 1985, be construed as a reference to the Schedule to the CET Act, 1985. Though the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 was omitted by section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985, section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 remained unamended in spite of the provisions of section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985 till May 12, 1988 when, on the basis of the Finance Act, 1988, section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 stood amended as follows : "14(x) Woven fabrics of wool covered under heading Nos. 51.06, 51.07, 58.01, 58.02, 58.03 and 58.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)." 20. On March 28, 1990, the following trade circular, which is annexure "A" in RN-314 of 1990, was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal : "CIRCULAR Sub : Rate of tax on sales of woollen carpets. Sales of carpets of all varieties and descriptions are taxable at 11 per cent under section 5(1)(d) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, vide serial No. 24 of Schedule II. Accordingly sales of woollen carpets would be exigible to tax in terms of the said entry. It seems that there is some confusion in regard to the rate of tax on woollen carpets in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Madanlal Shroff v. State of West Bengal [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) that woollen carpets containing more than 40 per cent of wool should be treated as a declared goods since the same is included in item 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The said item No. 21 underwent substantial amendment in 1979 as a result of which carpets and floor coverings have been specifically omitted from the item. The said item No. 21 underwent substantial amendment in 1979 as a result of which carpets and floor coverings have been specifically omitted from the item. In such event, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, there is no bar to treat woollen carpet irrespective of the percentage of woollen contents as an item included in Schedule II appended to the bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for the purpose of taxation under section 5(1)(d) of the said Act, 1941. This is for information to all concerned." 21. Mr. Somen Bose, learned Senior Advocate for some of the applicants, has contended that exemption by way of providing for tax on woollen fabrics at 4 per cent under section 15(a) read with section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, cannot be taken away by issuing the trade circular dated March 28, 1990. His contention is that as section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 remained unamended from 1961 till May 12, 1988, in spite of amendments of the CES Act, 1944 in 1977 and 1979 and insertion of section 4(2) in the CET Act, 1985, the exemption by providing for payment of tax at 4 per cent cannot be taken away till May 12, 1988. Mr. Bose has referred to the cases of Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer [1958] 9 STC 428 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 667 and Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1498 and has contended that when assessments by exercising quasi-judicial functions are to be made by the Commercial Tax Officer, who exercises quasi-judicial functions and on whom a duty has been cast to act in a judicial and independent manner, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, cannot control or fetter the judgment of the Commercial Tax Officer in the matter of assessment of woollen carpets by issuing directions, as has been done by issuing the trade circular dated March 28, 1990 to assess woollen carpets. It is no doubt true that the discretion of the Commercial Tax Officer to assess tax in a judicial and independent manner ought not to have been fettered by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by issuing the trade circular dated March 28, 1990, alleging existence of confusion regarding rate of tax in view of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465. This trade circular dated March 28, 1990 is, thus, illegal and is to be set aside. The contention that since woollen carpets have been taken to be woollen fabrics and the applicants were granted the benefit of section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956, this benefit should not be taken away on the basis of introduction of Explanation III to item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979, cannot, however, be accepted. Reference has been made by Mr. Somen Bose to the cases of Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 2049 and Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC); AIR 1991 SCW 2851 for the purpose of contending that the benefit of taxation on woollen carpets at 4 per cent should not be taken away because of introduction of Explanation III to item 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979. These cases do not support this contention by Mr. Bose Exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. Both the aforesaid cases, referred to by Mr. Bose, relate to freedom from liability to pay tax. In these cases Mr. Bose does not contend that woollen carpets should be exempted from payment of any tax whatsoever. His contention is that the taxation of woollen carpets should not exceed the rate of 4 per cent, as provided in section 15(a) read with section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956. In the circumstances the cases reported in [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 2049 (Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd.) and [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC); AIR 1991 SCW 2851 (Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) can have no application in these cases. 22. Reference has been made by Mr. In the circumstances the cases reported in [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 2049 (Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd.) and [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC); AIR 1991 SCW 2851 (Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) can have no application in these cases. 22. Reference has been made by Mr. Somen Bose, learned Senior Advocate for some of the applicants, to the case of State of Kerala v. Attesee (Agro Industrial Trading Corporation) [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC) for the purpose of contending that the rate of tax on woollen fabrics at 4 per cent should be continued till May 12, 1988 up to which section 14(x) of CST Act, 1956, remained unamended since 1961. This contention cannot be accepted on the basis of the decision in the case of Attesee [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC). As stated in the case of State of Kerala v. Attesee [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC), there is a distinction between referential legislation which merely contains a "reference to, or citation of' a provision of another statute and piece of referential legislation which incorporates within itself a provision of another statute. In the former case, the provision of second statute, along with all its amendments and variations from time to time should be read into the first statute. In the latter case, the position would be that the borrowed provisions of the first statute should become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and would be totally unaffected by repeal or amendment of the previous Act. This rule of construction is on the basis of the principle that where a statute is incorporated by reference in a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does no affect the second. This rule of construction is on the basis of the principle that where a statute is incorporated by reference in a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does no affect the second. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan AIR 1975 SC 1835 this principle in respect of legislation by incorporation was laid down, subject to the following exceptions : (a) Where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia; (c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual or unrealistic or impractical; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act. 23. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan AIR 1975 SC 1835 the point for determination was whether for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, "public servant" would mean a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, as that section stood at the time of enforcement of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or would mean "public servant" after amendments of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code in 1958 and 1964. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, runs as follows : "For the purposes of this Act 'public servant' means a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." This section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act remained unamended in spite of amendment by way of insertion of twelfth clause in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code in 1958 and in 1964. The question in that case was whether the definition of "public servant" borrowed from section 21 of the Indian Penal Code should be read into section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act not only at the time when it was borrowed in 1947 but even at the material date when an offence was committed by an employee of Heavy Electricals (India) Ltd., Bhopal. In that case the Supreme Court extended the meaning given to the term "pubic servant", as referred to in section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by applying the enlarged definition contained in twelfth clause inserted in the Penal Code by the two amendments in 1958 nd in 1964. This was done by the Supreme Court on a consideration of the fact that if the amendments to section 21 of the Indian Penal Code were not imported in section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would be wholly unworkable and ineffectual. These principles regarding referential legislation by way of incorporation, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan AIR 1975 SC 1835 , were followed by the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of State of Kerala v. Attesee (Agro Industrial Trading Corporation) [1989] 72 STC 1. 24. The question for decision in the case of State of Kerala v. Attesee [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC) was whether for the purpose of assessment exemption given to "cotton fabrics" under item 7 in the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 should be restricted to "cotton fabrics", as defined in the CES Act, 1944 as it stood on April 1, 1963 or whether it would also cover goods falling under the said definition after the amendment of the expression "cotton fabrics" in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1969. This question arose because the assessees dealt in "PVC cloth", an item of goods which was clearly covered by the amended definition of "cotton fabrics" but, perhaps, not by the original definition of "cotton fabrics". The Supreme Court decided in that case that the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 brought in the definitions of "cotton fabrics" in the CES Act, 1944 by way of reference or citation and not by way of incorporation. The Supreme Court decided in that case that the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 brought in the definitions of "cotton fabrics" in the CES Act, 1944 by way of reference or citation and not by way of incorporation. This decision of the Supreme Court was due to the fact that the three Acts, namely, the CES Act, 1944, CST Act, 1956 and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 were inter-connected and that certain goods taken out from the Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 were to be subjected to the special treatment outlined in the CST Act, 1956 and the Act of 1957. According to the Supreme Court, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 indicated a policy that certain items which were subjected to additional excise duty should be left out of sales tax levy except in cases where there was a specific indication or provision to the contrary in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. As such, the Supreme Court held in that case that the scope of exemption available in respect of cotton fabrics under item No. 7 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would vary according to the scope of the corresponding entry in the Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant time of assessment in that case. In other words, the Supreme Court held that the amendment of item 19 regarding cotton fabrics in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 should be applied in determining the question of exemption from sales tax in respect of cotton fabrics under item 7 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 25. So far as the cases of the applicants are concerned, I am of the opinion that the mention of the definition of "woollen fabrics" in item No. 12B and subsequently in item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 is by way of "incorporation" on the authority of the decision in the case of Narasimhan AIR 1975 SC 1835 and not by way of "reference" or "citation". The case of Attesee [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC) was a case of exemption from payment of sales tax and as such the referred or cited provision grew or shrank with the changes in the parent statute. In the cases of the applicants if the mention of item No. 12B and subsequently item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in the CST Act, 1956 is taken to be a case of incorporation, the repeal of the First Schedule of the CES Act, 1944 by section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985 will not affect the definition of "woollen fabrics" as given in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, if there had not been any amendment of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979. But for this amendment of the CES Act in 1979, the position would be that up to May 12, 1988, before amendment of section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 with effect from May 13, 1988, the definition of "woollen fabrics" in item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 would be relevant for assessing tax on woollen fabrics at the rate of 4 per cent under section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956. Because of the amendment of item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979, whereby Explanation III was inserted in item No. 21 excluding floor coverings falling under item No. 22G, the discussions regarding referential legislation cannot determine the questions of assessment of the applicants during the disputed years in these cases. In other words, on the basis of the decision in the case of State of Kerala v. Attesee (agro Industrial Trading Corporation) [1989] 72 STC 1 (SC), the rate of tax on woollen fabrics cannot be taken to be 4 per cent till May 12, 1988. 26. The question is whether, in the aforesaid circumstances, the rate of tax on woollen carpets should be at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent after the amendment of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979 or even thereafter and if so, up to what date or month ? The answer to this question is not free from difficulty. In this context, one is to consider the question of undesirability of disturbing a settled construction. The answer to this question is not free from difficulty. In this context, one is to consider the question of undesirability of disturbing a settled construction. In the case of the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balkrishna Malhotra [1971] 81 ITR 759 this undesirability of disturbing a settled construction was considered by the Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court in that case that interpretation of a provision in a taxing statute rendered years back and accepted and acted upon by the department should not be easily departed from. While reconsidering the decisions rendered a long time back, particularly under taxing statutes, the courts cannot ignore the harm that is likely to happen by unsettling law that has once been settled. Woollen carpets were taken to be "woollen fabrics" under item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) and it was held in that case that the rate of tax on woollen carpets, made wholly of wool, or containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool should not exceed 4 per cent, the maximum prescribed by section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956. This decision, though relating to a period prior to the amendment of item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979, held the field even up to August 17, 1990 when it was not disputed even by the Revenue in the case of R. L. Chopra v. State of West Bengal in case No. RN-125 (T) of 1990 before this Tribunal that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) held the field. The inference is that in proceedings for assessment even subsequent to the deletion of the First Schedule of the CES Act, 1944 by section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985, the existence of section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985 was either totally overlooked by the authorities concerned or were not known to the authorities. The inference is that in proceedings for assessment even subsequent to the deletion of the First Schedule of the CES Act, 1944 by section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985, the existence of section 4(2) of the CET Act, 1985 was either totally overlooked by the authorities concerned or were not known to the authorities. In this state of facts, balance of inconvenience inclines towards declaring now what I believe to be the law because of the amendment of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979. The courts dislike disturbing a long continuing practice, based on the prevailing judicial interpretation, retrospectively, even though the practice is found later on to be not in conformity with law. The question whether woollen carpets made wholly of wool or containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool should be assessed to tax at a rate exceeding 4 per cent affected the pocket of the traders. If they were made to believe, on the basis of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) that the rate of tax on woollen carpets would not exceed 4 per cent, this settled construction on the basis of the Division Bench decision should not be allowed to be disturbed because the Revenue was not aware of or remained unconcerned about the amendment of the item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979 and even up to August 17, 1990 in case No. RN-125 (T) of 1990 of this Tribunal. In the circumstances, considering the question of balance of convenience and inconvenience, I am of the opinion that the rate of tax on woollen carpets, on the basis of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal), should be allowed to continue at the rate of 4 per cent, if not up to August 17, 1990, at least up to May 12, 1988 till when section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 remained unamended since 1961, in spite of amendment of item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979. 27. 27. To sum up, the position in West Bengal up to November 15, 1967, was blanket exemption of carpets from sales tax on the basis of rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941. On and from November 16, 1967, when item No. 24 was inserted in Schedule II to the Act of 1941 and up to April 6, 1975, cotton carpets and woollen carpets merited exemption from tax under section 5(2)(a)(iv) (since omitted) of the Act of 1941 read with rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as stated in trade circular No. 4/68 dated December 28, 1968. On and from April 7, 1975 [when woollen carpets were excluded from the scope of rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941 on the basis of amendment of this rule under Notification No. 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975] and up to the insertion of Explanation III to item No. 21 and insertion of item No. 22G in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 woollen carpets made wholly of wool or containing 40 per cent or more by weight of wool, which were decided by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56; (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) to be "woollen fabrics", became exigible to tax at 4 per cent under section 14(x) read with section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956. After the aforesaid amendment of the CES Act, 1944 in 1979, whereby woollen carpets were excluded altogether from the scope of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944, woollen carpets ceased to be "declared goods" under section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 and became taxable under item No. 24 in Schedule II of the Act of 1941. Even then, after amendment of item No. 21 in the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979, woollen carpets would continue to be exigible to tax at 4 per cent on the basis of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal) on a consideration of the undesirability of disturbing a settled construction and on a consideration of balance of inconvenience to the dealers. This position about the rate of tax on woollen carpets at the rate of 4 per cent from 1979 will continue up to May 12, 1988, when section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 was amended by incorporating the woven fabrics of wool covered under several headings in the Schedule to the CET Act, 1985. 28. Before discussing the question of reliefs in each of the cases, on the basis of the aforesaid findings, it is to be stated that the finding that the rate of tax on woollen carpets would continue to be at the rate of 4 per cent even after the amendment of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979 is based on the principle of undesirability of disturbing a construction decided by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which was the highest judicial authority of the State on sales tax laws in this State prior to the vesting of jurisdiction with this Tribunal in the matter under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. This finding about the rate of tax on woollen carpets at 4 per cent, on the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench decision in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal), is not due to any mistake of law regarding the rate of tax on woollen carpets after the insertion of Explanation III to item No. 21 of the Schedule to the CES Act, 1944 in 1979. As such, there will be no question of refund of any tax levied and collected by the authorities concerned on woollen carpets, even if the tax exceeded the rate of 4 per cent during the period from 1977 and up to May 12, 1988. In other words, those cases wherein sales tax on woollen carpets at a rate exceeding 4 per cent has already been levied and collected for the periods from 1979 and up to May 12, 1988, should not be reopened and there should be no scope for refund of sales tax on woollen carpets, if levied and collected at a rate exceeding 4 per cent during this period. 29. 29. Coming now to the prayers in the cases taken up for analogous hearing, it is to be stated that in some cases such as cases No. RN-432 of 1990 and RN-281 of 1990, prayers have been made for declaration that hand-knitted carpets, hand-tufted carpets and hand-woven pile carpets are declared goods under section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956 and that such goods should be exigible to tax at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent on the basis of section 15(a) of the CST Act, 1956. No such declaration will be given in any of these cases, as no argument has been advanced before us for showing as to whether hand-knitted carpets, hand-tufted carpets and hand-woven pile carpets come within the purview of any of the headings in the Schedule to the CET Act, 1985, as mentioned in section 14(x) of the CST Act, 1956, on amendment with effect from May 13, 1988. In most of the cases there is a prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus as well as a writ in the nature of prohibition so that the respondents cannot levy or collect sales tax on woollen carpets at a rate exceeding 4 per cent. No such writ in the nature of mandamus or in the nature of prohibition will be issued as the question of rate of tax on woollen carpets, containing 30 per cent or 40 per cent by weight of wool, has been decided up to May 12, 1988 on the basis of the principle of undesirability of unsettling a settled construction and the balance of inconvenience and not on any other basis. The result is that some of the cases can at best be allowed in part. 30. Case No. RN-31 (T) of 1992/RN-239 (T) of 1989 arises out of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered as C.R. No. 4109 (W) of 1985 by the High Court, Calcutta. In that civil rule there was an ad interim order on April 18, 1985, permitting the respondents to proceed with assessments, though no effect should be given to such order of assessment nor any demand notice should be enforced or communicated till the disposal of the rule. There can be no declaration that rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as amended by Notifications bearing Nos. There can be no declaration that rule 3(28) of the Rules of 1941, as amended by Notifications bearing Nos. 1820-F.T. and 1823-F.T. dated April 1, 1975 with effect from April 7, 1975, is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature, as prayed for in this case, in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Madanlal Shroff [1989] 72 STC 56 (Cal); (1987) 20 STA 465 (Cal). The assessments in that case for the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1978, December 31, 1979 and December 31, 1980 are, however, to be set aside with direction for making assessments for these years on the basis of this judgment. As for proceedings for assessment for the periods of four quarters ending on December 31, 1981, December 31, 1982, December 31, 1983 and December 31, 1984, it is to be stated that these proceedings for assessments for these years will not be set aside or quashed, but if any assessment for these years or any of these years has been made on the basis of the interim order passed on April 18, 1985, those assessments should, if contrary to the observations made in this judgment, be set aside and fresh assessments for these years should be made in accordance with this judgment. There will be, however, no writ of prohibition though the record of C.R. No. 4109 (W) of 1985 is to be sent to the High Court, Calcutta, for disposal of the matters relating to the CST Act, 1956, involved in the writ petition. 31. Case No. RN-351 (T) of 1989 arises out of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, registered in the High Court, Calcutta as C.R. No. 4513 (W) of 1985. Interim order dated April 24, 1985, was passed in that civil rule, permitting the respondents to proceed with the assessment though no effect would be given to such order of assessment nor would any demand notice be enforced and communicated to the applicants. Interim order dated April 24, 1985, was passed in that civil rule, permitting the respondents to proceed with the assessment though no effect would be given to such order of assessment nor would any demand notice be enforced and communicated to the applicants. Though there will be no writ in the nature of mandamus or any writ in the nature of prohibition in this case, for reasons already stated, assessments, if any, made on the basis of the interim order of the High Court dated April 24, 1985, should be in accordance with the observations in this judgment and if any assessment has been made, contrary to the observations in the judgment, such assessment should be set aside and fresh assessment should be made in accordance with this judgment. 32. In case No. RN-314 of 1990 Commissioner's trade circular dated March 28, 1990 as well as the notices dated April 6, 1990 and June 6, 1990 for reopening the assessments for the four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1985 will be quashed, though there will be no declaration or any writ in the nature of prohibition or any order of injunction, as prayed for. As interim order was passed by this Tribunal on June 29, 1990. If, in pursuance of this order of this Tribunal, any assessment has been made by the authority concerned, which is not in accordance with this judgment, the assessment should be set aside and fresh assessment should be made in accordance with this judgment. 33. In case No. RN-429 of 1990 the notice of review in form IX will not be quashed as subsequently an order was passed on October 30, 1990, by the respondent No. 3 of the case. This order dated October 30, 1990 will be quashed, though there will be no writ in the nature of mandamus or any writ in the nature of prohibition. A stay order was passed by this Tribunal on December 14, 1990, in this case for staying operation of the order dated October 30, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta (South) Circle. This stay order will be vacated. 34. A stay order was passed by this Tribunal on December 14, 1990, in this case for staying operation of the order dated October 30, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta (South) Circle. This stay order will be vacated. 34. In case No. RN-432 of 1990 the notice dated October 23, 1990, in form IX under rule 79 of the Rules of 1941 will be quashed, though there will be no writ in the nature of prohibition or any order of injunction. 35. In case No. RN-281 of 1991 the assessment in case No. 77(D)/90-91 for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1987, will be quashed and fresh assessment should be made by the authority concerned in accordance with this judgment. There will be no writ in the nature of mandamus or any writ in the nature of prohibition. The following order is accordingly passed. 36. Case No. RN-31 (T) of 1992/RN-239 (T) of 1989 is allowed in part. The orders of assessments for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1978, December 31, 1979 and December 31, 1980 are quashed. If any assessment has been made for the period of four quarters ending on December 31, 1981 or December 31, 1982 or December 31, 1983 or December 31, 1984, on the basis of the interim order of the High Court, Calcutta dated April 18, 1985, such assessment shall be set aside, if such assessments are not in accordance with this judgment and fresh assessments for these years shall be made in accordance with this judgment. The interim order dated April 18, 1985 passed in the case is vacated. Let the record of C.R. No. 4109 (W) of 1985 be sent to the High Court, Calcutta, in so far as that record contains matters relating to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, after keeping xerox copies of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution in that case. 37. Let the record of C.R. No. 4109 (W) of 1985 be sent to the High Court, Calcutta, in so far as that record contains matters relating to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, after keeping xerox copies of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution in that case. 37. Case No. RN-351 (T) of 1989 is dismissed with the rider that if, in pursuance of the interim order dated April 24, 1985, passed in that case by the High Court, Calcutta, any assessment has been made for the periods of four quarters ending on June 30, 1981 or June 30, 1982 or June 30, 1983 or June 30, 1984, which is not in accordance with this judgment, the assessment shall be set aside and fresh assessments shall be made for these years in accordance with this judgment. Let the record of C.R. No. 4513 (W) of 1985 be sent to the High Court, Calcutta, in so far as that record relates to matters arising out of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, after keeping xerox copy of the writ petition in that C.R. No. 4513 (W) of 1985. 38. Case No. RN-314 of 1990 is allowed in part. The trade circular No. 4936 (125) C.T. dated March 28, 1990, issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, West Bengal, is quashed. The two notices dated April 6, 1990 and June 6, 1990, for reopening of the assessments for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 or March 31, 1985, are also quashed. If any assessment has been made for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1985 or for any subsequent year, which is not in accordance with this judgment, on the basis of the interim order of this Tribunal dated June 29, 1990, the assessment shall be set aside and fresh assessments shall be made in accordance with this judgment for these years, if any. The interim order of this Tribunal dated June 29, 1990, is vacated. 39. Case No. RN-429 of 1990 is allowed in part. The order of the respondent No. 3 dated October 30, 1990, is quashed. The stay order of this Tribunal dated December 14, 1990, is vacated. 40. Case No. RN-432 of 1990 is allowed in part. The notice in form No. IX dated October 23, 1990, from the respondent No. 3 is quashed. The order of the respondent No. 3 dated October 30, 1990, is quashed. The stay order of this Tribunal dated December 14, 1990, is vacated. 40. Case No. RN-432 of 1990 is allowed in part. The notice in form No. IX dated October 23, 1990, from the respondent No. 3 is quashed. Case No. RN-281 of 1991 is allowed in part. The assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1987, in case No. 77(D)/90-91 is set aside. The Commercial Tax Officer concerned will make fresh assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1987, in accordance with this judgment. 41. There will be no order for costs in any of the six cases. On the verbal prayer of Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative there will be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of four weeks from this date. P. C. BANERJI (Technical Member). - I agree. L. N. RAY (Judicial Member). - I agree. Ordered accordingly.