Honble CHOPRA, J.—These four Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.03.1993, whereby the learned Judge has decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1992 Sarvottam Vegetable Products V. State of Rajasthan and other writ petitions mentioned above. All these appeals are directed against this very common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge and hence these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2). The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are that the petitioner Companies are manufacturers and/or dealers in edible oils. Some of the petitioner-appellants are manufacturers and dealers of the stainless steel sheets. The appellants made some inter-state sales of aforesaid goods i.e. edible oils and stainless steel sheets to various purchasing dealers of Bombay and Gujarat. In most of the goods the sale transactions took place through commission-agents. In most of the cases the selling dealers obtained declarations in form C i.e. C certificates or forms as they are called in business parlance, received from the purchasing dealers of Ahmedabad and Bombay through their commission agents and submitted them to the Assessing Authorities. It appears that Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion) undertook certain survey inquiries and they revalealted that in some cases the registration of some of the purchasing dealers have been cancelled before the sales have been made to them by the petitioner-firms or they were not found to be dealers in edible oil/steel sheets but were found to be dealers in some other commodities and in some cases the counterfoil of C forms submitted by the selling dealers were found to be in the name of 3rd parties rather than the petitioners. As a result of these inquiries Anti-evasion proceedings were commenced by respondent No. 2 against the appellants i.e. selling dealers and issued them notices to show cause why additional tax and penalty should not be recovered from them. In addition to the tax which has already been charged recovered from them. In pursuance of the notification Anx. 1 dated 26.12.86 and Anx. 2 dated 17.4.90 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In addition to the tax which has already been charged recovered from them. In pursuance of the notification Anx. 1 dated 26.12.86 and Anx. 2 dated 17.4.90 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. To complete the factual matrix final assessment orders have been passed only in the case of Sarvottam Vegetable Products case whereas in all, in all other cases final orders have yet to be passed. M/s Sarvottam Vegetable Products has however filed an appeal against that final assessment order and that is still pending. (3). The appellants resisted the notices and said that they are only required to furnish C forms obtained by them. If they are not found genuine then the purchasing dealers should be held liable for their acts of commission and omission and secondly it was contended that furnishing of C forms is not at all necessary, so far as these inter-state transactions are concerned. The provisions of section 8(5) of the Act hereinafter referred to as the CST Act is a self contained Code and when the Stale Government as a delegatee of the Parliament exercised powers under section 8(5) provisions of S.8 (1) to 8 (4) of the CST Act have no application. The scheme under section 8(5) is independent and totally exclusive in its application so fare as the field covered by it is concerned. Other provisions of section 8(1) to 8(4) of the CST Act have no application. It starts with a non-obstanate clause and hence the State Government has every power to put any conditions for availing the concessional rate of tax permitted by it to inter-state sales of specified goods in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 8(5) of the CST Act. Section 8(1) read with section 8(4) of the Act in such cases are not applicable. The furnishing of C form for proving such inter-state sales of specified goods is conspicuous by their non-mention in both the aforesaid two notifications. If the requirement of furnishing form C has been deliberately omitted, therefore, it is a case of casuse-omissus i.e. when it is a case of non-mention in both these notifications by the State Government as a delegatee of Parliament. If the requirement of furnishing form C has been deliberately omitted, therefore, it is a case of casuse-omissus i.e. when it is a case of non-mention in both these notifications by the State Government as a delegatee of Parliament. The Courts cannot supply that condition if the State Government has refrained from providing such a condition in the impugned two notifications. It was contended that the provisions of section 8(1) to 8(4) of the CST Act so far as they are inconsistent with the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act cannot be attached and the notification will hold the field and not the provisions of section 8(1) to 8(4) of the Act because of the non-obstiante clause with which section 8(5) of CST Act starts. Certain other contentions have been raised in the appeal as regards the nature of the transactions and as regards the submission of the C form and the forms that have been issued to them but we are not concerned with the factual aspect of controversy involved in the matter i.e. the disputed questions of fact will not be gone into by us. They will be heard and decided by the Assessing Authority. Learned single Judge has also not gone into them and has left them to be considered by the appropriate assessing authority. If the Assessing Authority takes a particular view and the appellants re aggrieved against view they can avail any legal remedy available to them under law against that view/decisions. Presently we are not going to enter into these disputed questions of facts i.e. as regards the acceptability or non-acceptability of the C forms etc. etc. or about the genuineness of the C form that has then issued to them. (4). Presently we are not going to enter into these disputed questions of facts i.e. as regards the acceptability or non-acceptability of the C forms etc. etc. or about the genuineness of the C form that has then issued to them. (4). However, the learned single Judge has taken the view that it is the petitioner who claimed concessional rate of tax for the business-transactions/sales made by them in the course of inter- state trade or commerce and as such it is for them to establish prima facie that these transactions are in the course of inter-state trade or commerce and it is always open to the Assessing Authority to ascertain whether the so called business transactions are in the course of inter-state trade or commerce or not and if the assessing authority on the basis of cogent evidence comes to the conclusion that the transactions are not in the course of inter-state trade or commerce then it can certainly disentitle the petitioners from claiming the benefit of concessional rate of tax made applicable to such transactions provided for by notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. It is the selling dealer who has to satisfy the prescribed authority that the transaction was in the course of inter-state trade or commerce and then and then alone he will be entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax. The learned single Judge further felt that the non-obstante clause when reasonably construed only means that the compliance of whole of sub-sections (1) to (4) of section 8 of the Act have not been dispensed with. It is only an enabling provision for the State Government to do away with the rigours of rates of taxation in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. It can only lower the rate of tax or bring it to nil but no further powers have been conferred on the State Government as a delegate of the Parliament to do away with requirements of the other provisions of section 8(1) to section 8(4) of the CST Act by exercising powers under this enabling provision-that is sub-section (5) of section 8 and it cannot be allowed to totally mitigate the impact of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CST Act. Section 8(4) of CST Act requires that the selling dealer will have to furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. The declaration is normally called C form in commercial and business parlance. The learned single Judge therefore felt that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 8 of CST Act are not over-riding provisions and compliance of sub-section (4) of section 8 is very well essential and that has not been done away with and, therefore, the assessing authority will be fully justified in demanding production of C- forms from the purchasing dealers in compliance of the requirements of submission of such forms under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CST Act. It is this conclusion which is under challenge before us by the appellants and has been meticulously argued and opposed by Mr. L.R. Mehta assisted by Shri Vineet Kothari and candidly supported by the State Government represented by Shri B.C. Mehta assisted by Shri Dinesh Mehta appearing on behalf of the Revenue. (6). We have given our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. We may state at the very out set that we are not going to deal with the disputed questions of facts. That has to be done by the appropriate Assessing Authority and, therefore, this decision will not govern those disputed questions of facts. We are precisely concerned only with one point in this appeal which has been canvassed before us and it is this that whether on issuance of a notification under section 8(5) of the CST Act it over-rides the other provisions of section 8(1) to 8(4) or whether it only partially over-rides them (as held by the learned single Judge) to the extent of the right of the State Government to reduce tax-rate or bring it to a nil but it does not affect the compliance of the other provisions of section 8 as contained in section 8(1) read with section 8(4) of the CST Act. We, therefore, make it clear that the other points which have been raised in these appeals have neither been canvassed before us nor they were pressed at this stage. We, therefore, make it clear that the other points which have been raised in these appeals have neither been canvassed before us nor they were pressed at this stage. We, therefore, leave them open to be agitated before the appropriate Assessing Authority by the parties. (6). Be that as it may, Mr. Mehta has strenuously contended that the provisions of section 8(5) of the CST Act are a complete Code by themselves. They have over-riding effect on the other provisions of section 8 i.e. section 8(1) to 8(4) of the CST Act. The two notice which are under challenge have been quoted in extenso (at verbatim) by the learned single Judge on pages 9 and 10 of the judgment and, therefore, we need not repeat them. Section 8 has also been quoted ad-verbatim on pages 5 to 8 of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge and, therefore, that also needs no repetition in this judgment. Both the notices relate to the transactions of inter-state trade or commerce which are covered by sub-section 8(1) of the Act i.e. they relate to specified goods that are sold to the Government or to the registered dealers other than the Government in course of inter-state trade or commerce. There is no dispute about the fact that the transactions which have been entered into by the petitioners are transactions of inter-state sales pertaining to edible-oils or stainless steel sheets which are prescribed items and about this the afore mentioned two notifications have been issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. The transactions are admittedly in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Thus the only point of dispute which remains to be decided is whether the Assessing Authority can insist upon the dealers i.e. petitioner-appellants to furnish the prescribed form in form C as envisaged by section 8(4) of the Act. We have already stated that the learned single Judge took the view that the provisions of section 8(5) of the CST Act are only enabling provisions and authorising the State Government to reduce or to do away with the rate of tax prescribed in section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. We have already stated that the learned single Judge took the view that the provisions of section 8(5) of the CST Act are only enabling provisions and authorising the State Government to reduce or to do away with the rate of tax prescribed in section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. It goes no further and, therefore, even if a notification is issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act it does not dispense with the compliance with section 8(4) of the Act which provides that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 8 shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed Authority in the prescribed manner. "(a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Government: Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause permit." (7). The contention of Mr. L.R. Mehta is that sub-section (5) of S.8 starts with a non-obstante clause and it provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in this section," the State Government may if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in public interest by notification in official gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein directed that no tax or lower rate of lax will be recoverable in respect of sales by a dealer in course of inter-state trade or commerce, then the one prescribed under sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) of section 8 or in respect of sale of specified qualities of goods mentioned in the notification the tax rate ran be reduced to nil or it can be lowered then one specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act in the course of inter-state trade or commerce payable by any class of specified dealers or about the type of goods specified in the notifications. His contention, therefore, is that it is a complete code by itself and this non-obstante clause has to be given its full effect. In this respect reliance has been placed on certain observations made by Author Bindra in his book Interpretation of Statutes 7th Edition (1984) page 1093, which are as under : — "The very purpose of non-obstante clause is that provision shall prevail over any other provision and that other provision shall not be of any consequence. In case there is any inconsistency or a departure between a non-obstante clause and other provisions, one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non-obstante clause which would prevail over." The very purpose of non-obstante clause is that that provision shall prevail over any other provision and that other provision shall not be of any consequence in case there is any inconsistency or departure between a non-obstante clause and other provisions, one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non-obstante clause have would prevail over other clauses. Even by dictionary sense the expression "notwithstanding" implies that other provisions shall not prevail over the main provision. (8). Mr. L.R. Mehta as also Mr. B.C. Mehta have placed reliance on the Commentary by Justice G.P. Singh on the treatise "Principles of Statutory Interpretation 5th Edition (1992). The learned Author has observed as under:- "A clause beginning with "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, is some times appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give effect. The indicating part of the section in case of conflict and over-riding effect over the provisions or Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause has an over-riding effect and it has to be given its due effect." In this respect Mr. L.R. Mehta placed reliance oil a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and others Vs. L.R. Mehta placed reliance oil a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and others Vs. G.M. Kokil and others reported in (1), wherein their Lordships observed as under : — "It is well know that a non-obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. Thus the non-obstante clause in section 70, namely, notwithstanding anything in that Act must mean not with standing any thing to the contrary contained in that Act and as such it must refer to the "exempting provisions which would be contrary to the general applicability of the Act." Reliance was also placed on a decision of their Lord-ships of the Supreme Court rendered in Chunnilal Prasadilal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Lucknow reported in (2) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that art interpretation which will make the provisions of the Act effective and implement the purpose of the Act should be preferred when possible, without doing violence to the language. Our attention was also invited to the Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court rendered in Lalluprasad and another Vs. State of Bihar reported in (3). It also dealt with the non-obstante clause. In para 4 their Lordships observed as under: — "It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite or surplusage if they can have an appropriate application. The very purpose of non-obstante clause is that that provision shall prevail over any other provision and that other provision shall not be of any consequence. In case there is any inconsistency or a departure between a non-obstante clause and other provisions, one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non-obstante clause that would prevail over the other clause. Even by dictionary sense, the expression notwithstanding" implies that other provisions shall not prevail over the main provision." The thrust of the entire decision is that non-obstante clause will prevail over other clauses. It simply cannot be brushed aside and it cannot be treated as a surplusage. Even by dictionary sense, the expression notwithstanding" implies that other provisions shall not prevail over the main provision." The thrust of the entire decision is that non-obstante clause will prevail over other clauses. It simply cannot be brushed aside and it cannot be treated as a surplusage. Our attention was also invited to certain observations of Lord Viscount Simond in Smith Vs. East Elore Rural and District Council and others reported in (4) wherein the learned Judge observed as under : - "My Lord I do not refer in detail to these authorities only because it appears to me that they do not over-ride the first of all principles of construction that plain words must be given their plain meaning." (9). The contention of Mr. L.R. Mehta, therefore, is that this non-obstante clause and the provision in this sub-section that the State Government is a delegate of the Parliament and in that capacity it can issue any notification in public interest subject to such conditions as may be specified therein is a complete Code. Of course it has power to reduce the rate of tax or bring it to nil but in doing so it over-rides all other provisions of this section and it has Authority while reducing the rate of tax to impose any conditions it may think fit for availing the concessional rate of tax and only those conditions which are mentioned in that notification alone have to be complied with and none- else. It is not within the scope of the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act that it will be governed by section 8(4) of the Act because the non-obstante clause clearly excluded such a compliance by use of works "notwithstanding anything contained in this section." It means that irrespective . of what is provided in clauses (1) to (4) of section 8 the cases where section 8(5) of CST Act is applicable, the conditions mentioned in the notification alone have to be complied with. Mr. Mehta, therefore, contended that the view of the learned single Judge is wrong when he slays that section 8(5) of the CST Act is only an enabling provision and it does not over-ride the requirements prescribed by section 8(4) of the Act. (10). In this respect he placed reliance on a decision of Kerala High Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax Vs. (10). In this respect he placed reliance on a decision of Kerala High Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax Vs. Jantha Expeller reported in (5). This was a case in which notification came to be issued by the Kerala Government under section 8(5) of the CST Act. The Assessing Authority, however, felt that Additional Sales Tax is also be leviable under Kerala State Additional Sales Tax Act (i.e. Act No. 20 of 1978) even though certain reduced rates are prescribed by a notification issued by the State Government under section 8(5) of the CST Act. That contention was over-ruled by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The appeal was that appeal i.e. the Assistant Commissioner Assessment Sales Tax Vs. Janta Expeller Co. and others (supra) came to be disposed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court which upheld the view of the learned single Judge that a notification under section 8(5) of the CST Act has an over-riding effect. It over-rides all other provisions of the State Act. whether they be the original Sales Tax or the Additional Sales Tax Act. The learned Judges held that the provisions of Additional Sales Tax are the applicable to a situation when inter state sales are to be taxed under section 8 or section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Certain observations regarding the applicability of section 8(2A) of CST Act were also made. State preferred an appeal against those observations before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and that case came to be decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court which has been referred to in (Asstt. Comm. (Assessment) Sales Tax Special circle Trichur vs. Janatha Expeller Co. & Others (6). By that judgment their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Assessment Sales Tax Commissioner Special Circle Trichure Vs. Jansdatha Expeller Co. observed that finding of the learned Judges of the Division Bench that sub-section (5) of section 7 of the CST Act has over-riding effect over the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act in respect of Sales made in course of inter-state trade or commerce deserves to be sustained but the observations of the learned Judges of the Division Bench regarding applicability of section 8(2A) of the CST Act were dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the appeal of Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax Vs. Arhad Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. reported in (7). In that case it was observed by their Lordships that the section 8(5) itself stales that the notification issued under it will have over-riding effect notwithstanding what is contained in section 8 of CST Act. It is, therefore, clear that once a notification is issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act it will have effect pro-prio-vigore and even any amendment of the rate applicable to inter-state sale will not affect the notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. , (11). Their Lordships therefore observed that unless the notification also is amended along with amendment of the other provisions in this section or the amending statutes in law has the effect of superseding the notification itself, the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Act remains unaffected. Thus their Lordships were of the view that notification issued under section 8(5) will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in section 8 i.e. section 8(1) to 8(4) of CST Act. It has to be given effect pro-prio vigore. This authority has been relied upon by Mr. B.C. Mehta also. Our attention was also invited to a single Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in M. Ishwarlal and Company and others Vs. State of Madras and others reported in (8), wherein the learned Judge observed that the Delegated Authority under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 has a particular function to perform and the local legislative and the delegatee have an altogether different legislative functions. It has no impact upon the legislative functions of either the Parliament or its delegatee under the Act in their respective fields. These laws, rules and notifications shall prevail and operate and are paramount. The learned Judge, it appears, wants to convey that once the powers are exercised by the State Government as a delegatee of the Parliament under section 8(5) of the Act that notification shall prevail, operate and be paramount in the field of its operation. No other provisions will be able to affect its efficacy. The State legislature has no power to cancel that notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. No other provisions will be able to affect its efficacy. The State legislature has no power to cancel that notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. While dealing with the interpretation of the statutes the learned Judge observed that it is the Courts duty to apply the plain language of the statute without unnecessary straining itself by attempting to find out the reasons behind the same. Ordinarily the Courts are bound to accept the literal legis as exclusive evidence of sensetia-legis. Therefore to give up what is said by the legislature and what was meant by the legislature extra-ordinary circumstances should appear. (12). Our attention was next drawn to the Full Bench Authority of Orissa High Court in Kamal Kumar Agrawal Vs. Sales Tax Officer Cuttuck (I Circle) reported in (9) wherein it has been held that provisions of section 6 of the CST Act are subject to the provisions of section 8(5) of the Act. A notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act has over-riding effect. Reference was also made to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in C.B. Bassapa Vs. State of Mysore reported in (10), wherein it has been held that inter-state sales made under the provisions of this Act are of two categories, either they are covered or governed by section 8(1) of the Act and if they are not covered by section 8(1) of the CST Act then they are governed by section 8(2) of the CST Act. There is no controversy before us that both these notifications relate to inter-state sales made in the course of trade or commerce pertaining to the specified goods which are provided by section 8(1) of the CST Act. These two notifications have no relation to inter-state sales made under section 8(2) of the CST Act. (13). The matter stands clinched by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Mackdowell and Company Vs. Sales Tax Officer Sherthally reported in (11). In this case reference has been made to an earlier decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sales Tax Officer Ponkunnam and others K.I. Abraham reported in (12). That was a case under section 8(4) of the Act. A notification was issued prescribing that the C form has to be produced within a prescribed period. That was a case under section 8(4) of the Act. A notification was issued prescribing that the C form has to be produced within a prescribed period. That notification was held to be ultra vires because it was against the provisions of section 8(4) of the Act. Section 8(4) of CST Act provides that the assessee has to furnish the declaration form in form C Within a reasonable time. It does not prescribe a particular period for its production i.e. that it should be furnished" within 3 months. This prescription of 3 months period for production of C-Form was held to be ultra vires of section .8(4) of CST Act. When reference to this authority was made in the case of Mackdowells and Company (supra) their Lordships observed that before the Division Bench in Abrahams case it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the notification issued under section 8(5) was invalid as the State Government was not competent to fix a time limit for production of the prescribed declaration. The High Court rejected that contention. Their Lordships observed in that case i.e. Abrahams case, the Court was called upon to interpret the third proviso to rule 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules of 1957 which provided that all declaration forms pending submission by dealers on May 2, 1960 shall be submitted not later than February 16, 1961. (14). In K.I. Abrahams case (supra) their Lordships held that this was ultra vires of section 8(4) of the Act because it was the duty of the appellant to furnish declaration in form C within reasonable time. Their Lordships observed in that judgment (i.e. in K.I.Abrahams case) this Court was considering the declaration required to be produced under section 8(4) of the CST Act. In that case the impugned rule was found to have gone beyond the provisions of section 8(4) of the Act. But in Mackdowells case the declaration that the appellant was required to produce, were declarations prescribed by the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. Here we may pause and state that the State Government of Kerala issued two notifications in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under section 8(5) of the CST Act. But in Mackdowells case the declaration that the appellant was required to produce, were declarations prescribed by the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. Here we may pause and state that the State Government of Kerala issued two notifications in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under section 8(5) of the CST Act. The first notification was issued on December 17, 1962 fixing the tax on sales from that State to dealers in Goa at one per cent of the turn over subject to the conditions that the seller should produce before the Assessing Authority within 3 months from the end of the assessment year a declaration duly signed by the purchaser in form appended to the notification under the section and a similar notification was issued on February 23, 1963 in respect of sales to dealers in Pondichery. Thus in the notification that were issued under section 8(5) of the Act it was made a condition precedent for availing the concessional rate of tax only on production of C form by the selling dealers by obtaining it from the purchasing dealer within three months from the end of the assessment year. It was the prescription of this time limit of three months from the end of the Assessment Year for production of C form which was challenged before their Lordships and in support of that argument K.I. Ibrahams case was cited and it was in this context that their Lordships observed that in that case the learned Judges were called upon to decide about the prescription of time prescribed by the prescribed Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8(4) of the Act as prescription of that time was held to be beyond the legislative competence of the authority concerned, it was held to be ultra vires. Here in Mackdowell and Companys case the notification which prescribed a particular time for the production of C form was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 8(5) of the CST Act and, therefore, their Lordships observed that that decision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (15). Here the declaration that the applicant is required to produce is a declaration prescribed by the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. (15). Here the declaration that the applicant is required to produce is a declaration prescribed by the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. Their Lordships observed that under that sub-section State Government was empowered to provide for hard cases which may not come within the scope of section 8(4). The notification issued afforded certain concessions to the assessees. They did not restrict the rights of the assessees. But for those notifications, the dealers in Kerala who had sold goods to dealers in Goa and Pondichery would have had to pay sales tax as provided in the State laws as it was not possible for them to take the benefit of section 8(4) for the reasons already mentioned. It clearly means that Once the field is covered by section 8(5) of the Act, application of Section 8(4) is excluded. Their Lordships observed that section 8(5) is meant to cover those hard cases which are not governed by section 8(4) of the Act which clearly means that once the State Government as a delegatee of the Parliamentary exercises powers under section 8(5) then the entire field is covered by the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Act and the operation of section 8(4) is automatically excluded on account of the non-obstante clause with which sub-section (5) of section of 8 CST Act starts. Their Lordships have further observed that, "section 8(5) specifically empowers the State Government to grant any concession subject to certain conditions as it may think fit to impose. "Thus for compliance of section 8(5) it is the delegated authority of the State Government which has to prescribe the conditions. They may prescribe any condition regarding production of C form within a particular time as was done in case of Anx. 3 dated March 4, 1992. Here the production of C form having not been provided in the notifications which have been issued under section 8(5) of CST Act its production is naturally excluded by necessary implication. (16). If compliance of section 8(4) is held to be mandatory and if the contention of Mr. B.C. Mehta is to be upheld that the State Government as delegatee of the Central Government has no power to exclude the compliance of the requirements of section 8(4) of the Act, then the State Government could not have issued a notification dispensing with the production of C form. B.C. Mehta is to be upheld that the State Government as delegatee of the Central Government has no power to exclude the compliance of the requirements of section 8(4) of the Act, then the State Government could not have issued a notification dispensing with the production of C form. The State can do so only because section 8(5) has overriding effect over all other provisions of section 8 including section 8(4). Reference has also been made to Anx. 5 and Anx. 6 which have been filed with the writ petition in which certain requirements have to be complied with by the dealer who to avail the benefit of reduced rate of tax and one of them is production of form C. Thus section 8(5) is a complete code by itself. It specifically empowers the State Government to grant any concession subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose and, therefore, those conditions, whether they be as regards the production of C form etc. has to be provided, then the notification itself and if it is not so provided, then the compliance of that condition cannot be insisted upon on the strength of other provisions of law, say, sec. 8(4) of CST Act. Thus in our considered view the view taken by the learned single Judge that section 8(5) is only an enabling provision and it has no over-riding effect on section 8(4) cannot be sustained in view of the authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Mackdowell & Co.s case which clinches the matter and renders finality to it when it says that section 8(5) is meant to cover cases which are not covered by section 8(4) and, therefore, the insistence for compliance for production of form C as required by section 8 (4) of the CST Act cannot be sustained. In case of a notification is issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 8(5) without providing for the production of C form then its production cannot be insisted upon by the Assessing Authorities by taking recourse to section 8(4) of the CST Act. (17). A similar view has been taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 188 of 1988 Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Kistoormal Gulabchand and two similar revisions decided by a common judgment rendered on April, 27, 1992. (17). A similar view has been taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 188 of 1988 Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Kistoormal Gulabchand and two similar revisions decided by a common judgment rendered on April, 27, 1992. As notification Anxs. 1 and 2 do not provide for any such condition that the dealer having his place of business in the Stale in respect of the sales made by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-state trade or goods specified in the notification will be required to furnish C-forrn before the concessional rate of tax is granted to him and when that has not been provided in Anx. 1 Anx.2 at all, its production simply cannot be insisted upon by the Assessing Authorities by taking recourse to section 8(4) of CST Act. Powers under section 8(5) of the Act being a complete code in themselves and this being so even on account of the presence of the non-obstante clause, it has over-riding effect on other provisions of the Act i.e. S. 8(1) to s. 8(4) of the CST Act and, therefore, if the State wants that prescribed C-form should be produced before one is allowed to avail the concessional rate of tax that it should provide for it in the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act. When that has not been done it simply cannot be insisted upon by taking recourse to section 8(4) of the CST Act. (18). The appeals, therefore, succeed. The judgment of the learned single Judge that even in cases covered by section 8(5) of the Act i.e. which are governed by notification Anx. 1 and Anx. 2 the Assessing Authority can not compel production of C-form before they are allowed to avail confessional rate of tax provided in Anx. 1 and Anx. 2 dated 26.12.86 and 17.4.90 respectively cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The contention of Mr. 1 and Anx. 2 the Assessing Authority can not compel production of C-form before they are allowed to avail confessional rate of tax provided in Anx. 1 and Anx. 2 dated 26.12.86 and 17.4.90 respectively cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The contention of Mr. L.R. Mehta that section 8(5) of the CST Act over-rides the provisions of section 8(1) to section 8(4) of the Act and the Production of the C-form prescribed by S.8(4) of the CST Act cannot be insisted upon if it does not form part of the notification issued under section 8(5) of the CST Act has to be sustained and it is accordingly sustained and the appeals stand disposed of accordingly on, merits on this limited point of interpretation of section 8(5) of the Act. As a result of this the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority in the case of M/s Sarvottam Vegetable Products is hereby quashed and set aside. Orders finally assessing them and others should be passed in the light of the decision rendered by this Court as aforesaid. (19). As regards other disputed questions of fact the Assessing Authority will be free to act according to law and the appellants will also be free to avail any legal remedy available to them against the orders of the Assessing Authority if they are aggrieved by it. (20). The appeals stand disposed of accordingly as aforesaid.