JUDGMENT RANVIR SAHAI VERMA, J. - The petitioners in these writ petitions own factories/plants manufacturing cement in the State of Gujarat. The cement so manufactured is sold in various States including the State of Rajasthan through a net work of stockists and dealers. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by three notifications of the State Government issued on January 8, 1990, June 27, 1990, and March 7, 1994. 3. Notification issued on January 8, 1990, reads as follows : "Notification No. F. 4(72)FD/Gr. IV/82-77 dated January 8, 1990. S.O. 166. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby, with immediate effect, directs that the tax payable under sub-sections (1) and (2) if the said section, by any dealer having his place of business in the State, in respect of the sale by him, from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of cement, to any Central or State Government undertaking or corporation or an autonomous body under the Government, shall be calculated at the rate of 7 per cent. [Published in Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary, Part 4(C)(II) dated January 9, 1990.]" Notification dated June 27, 1990, reads as follows : "Notification No. F. 4(72)FD/Gr. IV/82-34 Jaipur dated June 27, 1990. S.0. 113. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), and in supersession of this Department Notification No. F. 4(72)FD/Gr. IV/82-77, dated January 8, 1990, the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to do, in the public interest, hereby, with immediate effect, directs that the tax payable under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said section, by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of cement shall be calculated at 7 per cent. on the following conditions, namely : (i) the selling dealer shall submit the certificate appended hereto duly filled in and signed by him to his assessing authority within 10 days from the date of delivery of such cement to the carrier; (ii) the selling dealer shall also enclose with the said certificate, the attested photostat copy of the railway receipt/goods receipt, as the case may be; and (iii) in case the goods are being carried through road transport, a copy of the said certificate shall also be handed over at the exit cheek-post of the State of Rajasthan. CERTIFICATE I/We ....................... (name of the firm/company/other status) having Registration No. (RST Act/CST Act) ....................... under the jurisdiction of the assessing authority ............ certify that ............. bags of cement amounting to Rs. ......... covered by the challan/cash memo(s) Nos. and the date ............... have been manufactured by me/us and are despatched in the course of inter-State trade or commerce vide RR/GR No. .............. (specify the number with date) ................ to Shri/M/s. ............ (full address of the purchaser) Dated : .................... Signature ........................ Name ............................. Designation ...................... Seal : [Published in Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary, Part 4(C)(II) dated June 27, 1990.]" Notification dated March 7, 1994, reads as under : "Finance (Gr. IV) Department Notification, Jaipur, March 7, 1994. S.O. No. 200. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956) and in supersession of this Department Notification No. F. 4(72) FD/Gr. IV/82-34, dated June 27, 1990, the Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby directs that the tax payable under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said section, by any dealer having his place of business in the State, in respect of the sales of cement made by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the rate of 4 per cent. without furnishing of declaration in form C or certificate in form D on the following conditions; namely : (i) that the dealer shall record the name and full and complete address of the purchaser in the bill or each memorandum for such inter-State sale to be issued by him; (ii) that the burden to prove that the transaction was in the nature of inter-State sale, shall be on the dealer; and (iii) that the dealer making inter-State sales under this notification shall not be eligible to claim benefit provided for by the Notification No. F. 4(72) FD/Gr. IV/81-8, dated May 16, 1986, as amended from time to time. This notification shall come into force from April 1, 1994 and shall remain in force up to March 31, 1995. [No. F. 4(8)FD/Gr. IV/94.70] By order of the Governor, Sd./- N. C. Goel, Deputy Secretary to Government. [Published in Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary, Part 4(C), dated March 7, 1994.]" 4. Writ Petitions Nos. 656 of 1994, 788 of 1994 and 803 of 1994 were filed in February, 1994, i.e., prior to issue of Notification dated March 7, 1994. By these writ petitions, they challenged the legality and validity of the first two notifications. Consequent to the issuance of the third Notification dated March 7, 1994, they were appropriately amended to include a challenge to Notification dated March 7, 1994. 5. It appears that some of the writ petitioners initially filed a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India before the apex Court. In these writ petitions, it was contended that the cases were squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court rendered in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1988] 69 STC 305; AIR 1988 SC 567 . The apex Court disposed these petitions by order dated January 17, 1994, passed in the following terms : "The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the points raised in these writ petitions [W.P. (C) Nos. 878, 877, 880 and 884 of 1993] are concluded in favour of the petitioners by the decision of this Court reported in [1988] 69 STC 305; AIR 1988 SC 567 (Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh). This being so, we consider it more appropriate that the petitioners move the concerned High Court for the grant of relief claimed by them, under article 226 of the Constitution. This being so, we consider it more appropriate that the petitioners move the concerned High Court for the grant of relief claimed by them, under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw these writ petitions for filing the same in the concerned High Court." (Annexure P7 of Writ Petition No. 656 of 1994). 6. The case set up by the petitioners is that article 301 of the Constitution of India guarantees that trade, commerce and intercourse, subject to other provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution of India, shall be free throughout the territory of India. Article 302 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to impose by law restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse, between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest. Article 303 of the Constitution of India provides for restrictions on the legislative powers of the Union and of the States with regard to trade and commerce. Article 304 of the Constitution, which begins with a non obsiante clause, provides for restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States and, inter alia, empowers Legislature of a State to impose by law a tax on goods imported from other States or the Union territories to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subjected, however, so as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced and to impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, or commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest. 7. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid three articles of the Constitution embody and enshrine a principle of paramount importance, viz., taxation is not to be resorted so as to give preference to goods manufactured in one State over goods manufactured or produced in other States. 8. Their case further is that section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act deals with rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 8. Their case further is that section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act deals with rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The object of the law as contained in this section is that the rate of Central sales tax shall in no event be less than the rate of local sales tax for goods in question though it may exceed the local rate in case that rate be less than 10 per cent. It is pleaded that variation in the rate of inter-State sales tax affects free-flow of trade and commerce and creates a local preference which is contrary to the scheme of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that the impugned notifications, purport to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. By Notification dated January 8, 1990, it was directed that the tax payable under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the aforesaid Act by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale made by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of cement shall be calculated at 7 per cent. subject to the dealer in Rajasthan furnishing a certificate to the said effect. This notification was confined to sale of cement to any Central or State Government undertaking or corporation or an autonomous body under the Government outside the State of Rajasthan by any dealer located in the State of Rajasthan. The second Notification dated June 27, 1990, was made applicable to any/all dealers or otherwise any person situated outside the State of Rajasthan and in such cases, the sales made to them by any dealer located in Rajasthan is taxed only at 7 per cent. 9. The case of the petitioners is that by the latest notification the situation envisaged by section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was altered altogether. The rate of tax under section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act on cement was 16 per cent. Even in case of inter-State trade or commerce, prior to the said notification, single point rate of tax was 16 per cent. when sold to unregistered dealers outside the State of Rajasthan. The rate of tax under section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act on cement was 16 per cent. Even in case of inter-State trade or commerce, prior to the said notification, single point rate of tax was 16 per cent. when sold to unregistered dealers outside the State of Rajasthan. By this notification, the situation was altered contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court. 10. It is pleaded that the impugned notification creates artificial trade barriers and has the effect of giving preference in the matter of inter-State trade and commerce to the manufacturers and dealers of cement in the State of Rajasthan over the dealers and manufacturers of cement in the other States. The rate of tax under section 7, Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act at serial No. 53 is 16 per cent. Under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 8(4), the concessional rate of Central sales tax when sold to Government or registered dealer is 4 per cent. and when sold to unregistered dealers the tax is at 16 per cent. under section 8(2)(b) of the said Act. As a result of the aforesaid notification the manufacturers in Gujarat of cement including the petitioners are put to disadvantageous position inasmuch as the purchasers in Gujarat can purchase cement in inter-State trade or commerce at the rate of 4 per cent. from Rajasthan dealers whereas such rate applicable to manufacturers in Gujarat to purchase in Gujarat is 16 per cent. This has further affected the free-flow of trade, commerce or intercourse throughout the territory of India and is hit under relevant articles 301, 302, 303 and 304 of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. 11. How this trade has been affected adversely to the prejudice of cement manufacturers in Gujarat has been stated in the latest writ petition, viz., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2645 of 1994 (Saurashtra Cement) in para 13(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), which pleas are illustrative of the pleas in all the writ petitions. We may reproduce the averments made in aforesaid para 13 and its sub-paras (a) to (f) for facility of reference : "13(a). We may reproduce the averments made in aforesaid para 13 and its sub-paras (a) to (f) for facility of reference : "13(a). We average monthly despatches from outside the State of Gujarat has increased tremendously on account of the impugned notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as could be seen hereunder : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Year Average Mfg. despatches Percentage from outside Gujarat increase ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991-92 47,000 M.T. .. 1992-93 59,000 M.T. 125% over 1991-92 1993-94 70,732 (till July) 119% over 1992-93 Overall 150% over 1991-92 (only in 4 months) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) The implication to the detriment of Gujarat manufacturers could be seen inasmuch as almost all the neighbouring States have increased the despatches to the Gujarat specially in the last few months as could he seen hereunder : 1. From Rajasthan to Gujarat 1,18,740 2. From Madhya Pradesh to Gujarat 59,340 3. From Maharashtra to Gujarat 48,916 4. From Andhra Pradesh to Gujarat 55,930 ---------- Total 2,82,926 ---------- (c) Out of total acceptance of tender by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. to the tune of 73,000 M.T. the share to Rajasthan manufacturers and Gujarat manufacturers are as under : Rajasthan Gujarat Mfr. Mfr. (i) Saurashtra Cement Co. ... 10,000 (ii) J.K. Cement Co. 50,000 ... (iii) Digvijay Cement Co. ... 8,000 (iv) Cement Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. ... 5,000 --------- --------- 50,000 23,000 --------- --------- Total 73,000 Out of total 73,000 M.T. Gujarat manufacturers got 23,000 which comes to 31.5 per cent. as against 68.5 per cent. which was allotted to Rajasthan manufacturers. A copy of the said acceptance of the tender is enclosed as annexure P5. (d) As per statistics available with cement manufacturers of India the despatches by dealers of Rajasthan manufacturers to Gujarat after the operation of the impugned notifications are as under : Year Quantity 1990-1991 1,63,689 M.T. (July-June) 1991-1992 2,20,922 M.T. (July-June) 1992-1993 2,12,395 M.T. (July-April) A monthwise statement showing despatches from Rajasthan manufacturers to Gujarat State is enclosed as annexure P6. (e) Corporations, Central/State Governments institutions like OBGC, GNFC, NDDB do not enjoy the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. against "C" form for purchases made in Gujarat like it is available to Government departments. Taking advantage of lowering rate of tax under the impugned notification, Rajasthan manufacturers have increased their despatches to these institutions in Gujarat. (e) Corporations, Central/State Governments institutions like OBGC, GNFC, NDDB do not enjoy the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. against "C" form for purchases made in Gujarat like it is available to Government departments. Taking advantage of lowering rate of tax under the impugned notification, Rajasthan manufacturers have increased their despatches to these institutions in Gujarat. A list of semi-Government companies in Gujarat who are taking advantage of lower rate in Rajasthan is given hereunder : 1. Gujarat Inds. Power Co. Ltd. 2. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Khandi. 3. Narmada Canal. 4. Gas Authority of India Ltd. 5. Sardar Sarovar Project. (f) Industries, builders as unregistered dealers are not eligible for concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. against "C" form under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Taking advantage of the impugned notification, such unregistered dealers have opted to purchase from Rajasthan manufacturers at 4 per cent. as against 16 per cent. prior to impugned notification. A list of such unregistered dealers/consumers is given hereunder : 1. Videocone Narmada Electronics. 2. Zaveri Polymers (P) Ltd., Palej. 3. Gujarat Inject Hospital Ltd., Baroda. 4. Steel Co. Gujarat Ltd., Palej. 5. Gujarat Spinners Ltd., Amletha. 6. Saraf Foods Ltd., Waghodia. 7. Rishabb Inds. Ltd., Waghodia. 8. Jayshree Insulators Ltd., Halol. 9. Rubamin Inds., Halol. 10. Khatau Junkar Ltd., Ankieshwar. 11. Ashok Organics Ltd. 12. Lactose India Ltd., Poicha. 13. Appolo Tyres. 14. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., Nandesari. 15. Gujarat Godrej, Valia. 16. Gokak Vadodara Spinning Mill, Baroda. 17. Indu Nisaii, Bajuwa. 18. Inox India Ltd., Halol. 19. Kanoria Chemical Inds., Ankleshwar. 20. Varun Seacon Ltd., Nadiad. 21. Transpek Inds. Ltd., Kalaii. 22. Synergy Polymers Ltd., Baroda. 23. Baroda Alloys Casting Ltd., Baroda. 24. Bentol Chemicals Ltd., Panoli. 25. Ravi Hi-tech Ltd., Baroda. 26. Clarisis Organics Ltd., Mokshi. 27. Simalin Chemicals Inds. (P) Ltd., Baroda. 28. Chemox Chemicals Inds. (P) Ltd., Panoli. 29. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 30. Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd. 31. Pesticides India Ltd., Panoli. 32. United Phosphorous, Ankleshwar." 12. It has been pleaded that besides being violative of the constitutional provisions referred to above, the impugned notifications are in total disregard to the report of the Taxation Enquiry Committee. (P) Ltd., Baroda. 28. Chemox Chemicals Inds. (P) Ltd., Panoli. 29. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 30. Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd. 31. Pesticides India Ltd., Panoli. 32. United Phosphorous, Ankleshwar." 12. It has been pleaded that besides being violative of the constitutional provisions referred to above, the impugned notifications are in total disregard to the report of the Taxation Enquiry Committee. It is pleaded that the report of the said Committee indicates that the main reason for electing the provision of section 8(2)(b) was to canalise inter-State trade through registered dealers over whom the appropriate Government had proper control and such Governments could prevent evasion of tax. It was with a view to discourage inter-State trade through unregistered dealers that the Parliament provided a high rate of tax, viz., 10 per cent. or the rate applicable to intra-State sales, whichever was higher. It is pleaded that the impugned notifications were likely to lead to tax evasion/avoidance by unregistered dealers over whom the State Government had no control. Thus, the impugned notifications did not advance any public interest. 13. Upon such pleadings, the petitioners, inter alia, prayed that the impugned notification(s) be quashed and the State Government be restrained from issuing such/similar notifications) in future. It was further prayed that the respondents he directed to act in accordance with law and not to act in accordance with impugned notification(s). 14. It may be stated that in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 656 of 1994, 788 of 1994 and 803 of 1994 the respondents are the State of Rajasthan, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Government of Rajasthan and the Union of India (Ministry of Finance). In D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2644 of 1994 and 2645 of 1994 the State of Gujarat has also been impleaded as a party in addition to the respondents named above. 15. We may state that the writ petitions have been opposed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, who have filed a counter. Union of India has not chosen to put in appearance. The State of Gujarat has put in appearance in the last two writ petitions and has substantially supported the writ petitioners and has specifically pleaded that the impugned notifications create a preference in favour of manufacturers of cement in Rajasthan. 16. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their replies in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. The State of Gujarat has put in appearance in the last two writ petitions and has substantially supported the writ petitioners and has specifically pleaded that the impugned notifications create a preference in favour of manufacturers of cement in Rajasthan. 16. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their replies in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 656 of 1994 and 803 of 1994 and have adopted these replies in all the cases. They have substantially traversed the pleas of the writ petitioners and it is denied that impugned notification(s) create any preference in favour of the cement manufacturers in Rajasthan or are violative in any manner of the provisions of the Constitution or adversely affect inter-State trade of cement in any way. 17. Since all the writ petitions involve substantially same questions of facts and law, they have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common order. 18. At the outset we may state that Notifications dated January 8, 1990 and June 27, 1990, have admittedly been superseded by the Notification dated March 7, 1994 and since the aforesaid-two notifications are no longer operative, the writ petitions have become infructuous to that extent and the challenge to these notifications does not survive and we may confine ourselves to the examination of the legality and validity of the latest Notification dated March 7, 1994. This very plea has also been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the following words : "It is submitted that the Notification dated January 8, 1990 (annexure B) was superseded by the Notification dated June 27, 1990. The Notification dated June 27, 1990, has been further superseded by the Notification dated, March 7, 1994 (S.O. No. 200) published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated March 7, 1994. Since the notification annexure B (P. 2) are no longer in existence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous and as such the same is liable to be dismissed." In their rejoinder, the petitioners have not refuted this position. Hence, we may safely conclude that challenge to the legality of these first two notifications need not engage our consideration. 19. Hence, the only question which survives for our consideration is, whether the impugned notification dated March 7, 1994, is invalid and illegal ? The case of the contesting respondents is three-fold. Hence, we may safely conclude that challenge to the legality of these first two notifications need not engage our consideration. 19. Hence, the only question which survives for our consideration is, whether the impugned notification dated March 7, 1994, is invalid and illegal ? The case of the contesting respondents is three-fold. On facts, it is submitted that raw material for production of cement, i.e., limestone is available in abundance in Rajasthan. Hence, the production of cement is higher in Rajasthan. Cement manufactured from Rajasthan and sold in Gujarat or other places outside Rajasthan necessarily involves cost of transportation and handling which would raise the sale price of cement outside the State. Costs of transportation and handling of cement for local manufacturers in Gujarat is likely to be much lesser, hence the cement sold by manufacturers in Rajasthan is not cheaper. It has been further submitted that the petitioner(s) have not given figures of despatches made from the State of Gujarat to other States and in absence of such figures, no comparisons could be made. It is submitted that rates quoted by the dealers are inclusive of sales tax and is almost the same in respect of cement manufactured in Rajasthan as for the cement manufactured locally. Hence, the lowering of inter-state sales tax does not impede the free-flow of trade. 20. Secondly, the contesting respondents challenge the correctness of figures given in para 13(a) to (f) reproduced above. It is stated that there is no material placed on record to verify the correctness or otherwise of the figures given by the petitioners. Annexure PS submitted by the petitioners shows that price quote by J.K. Cement Company, which is admittedly a manufacturer in Rajasthan, is substantially the same, as the price quoted by the manufacturers in Gujarat and this belies the contention that cement manufactured in Rajasthan is being sold at cheaper rate. 21. Thirdly, it has been pleaded that the pleas raised by the petitioners have no basis in law. Petitioners have mainly placed reliance upon the decision in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC), AIR 1988 SC 567 . 21. Thirdly, it has been pleaded that the pleas raised by the petitioners have no basis in law. Petitioners have mainly placed reliance upon the decision in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC), AIR 1988 SC 567 . It has been submitted that the said judgment is not in consonance with the earlier and later judgments of the apex Court and the notification was lawfully issued and did not violate any of the constitutional provisions or provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. Hence, the writ petitions were devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed. 22. We have beard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and we are of the view that these writ petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed. Firstly, on facts, we do not find that reduction of inter-State sales tax by the impugned notification was calculated to impede the free-flow of trade in cement in any way. We have the ipse dixit of the petitioners qua their pleas in para 13(a) to 13(f) already reproduced above. It was for the petitioners to have placed cogent, credible and trustworthy material on record to establish that their averments are correct and true. Admissions made on these points by State of Gujarat do not in any way advance the case of the petitioners, particularly when contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have stoutly challenged the truthfulness of the assertions made on behalf of the petitioners. Annexure P5 placed by the petitioners on record in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 788 of 1994 deserves to be reproduced for facility of ready reference. It reads as under : "Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. No. CMT-1192-8. N. Dated June 1, 1992 To The Chief Engineer, Navagam Dam, Kevadia Colony. Sub : Tender for manufacture and supply of PPC/OPC (Bulk) for Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) Project. In connection with the Chief Engineer (ND)'s confidential letter No. CE/ND/SK/T. 18/67 dated March 23, 1992, I am directed to convey the approval of tender rate offer negotiation and allocation of the cement quantity amongst cement suppliers for the tender Schedules 1 and 2 as under : Schedule 1 PPC (Bulk) Delivery --------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Name of Cement Co. Qty. in Rate Place of MT. delivery 1 2 3 4 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 M/s. Narmada Cement Co. Ltd. 1,30,000 Rs. Qty. in Rate Place of MT. delivery 1 2 3 4 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 M/s. Narmada Cement Co. Ltd. 1,30,000 Rs. 2,056.71 Dam site 2 M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. 1,20,000 Rs. 2,056.71 Dam site For 18,000 MT PPC (bulk) the order will be issued afterwards. SCHEDULE 2 1 (a) PPC (Bulk) --------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Name of Cement Co. Qty. in Rate Place of MT. delivery 1 2 3 4 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 M/s. Saurashtra 5,000 Rs. 2,056.71 Jandalia and Chikhadra Cement Co. main canal site. 2 M/s. J.K. Cement 26,000 Rs. 2,056.71 do. Co. 1 (b) PPC (Bulk) 1 M/s. Saurashtra 5,000 Rs. 2,056.71 Main canal site of Cement Co. work at Km. 9. 2 M/s. J.K. Cement 10,000 Rs. 2,056.71 do. Co. 2 (b) OPC (Bulk) 1 M/s. Digvijay 8,000 Rs. 2,096.71 At Tandalja and Chikh- Cement Co. odra main canal site. 2 M/s. Cement 5,000 Rs. 2,096.71 At Rajbadali main Corporation of Gujarat canal site. Ltd. 3 M/s. J.K. Cement 3,000 Rs. 2,096.71 At Tandalja and main Co. canal site. 4 do. 11,000 Rs. 2,096.71 At Rajbodaii main canal site. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. The above rates are inclusive of all taxes, duties, licences, etc., as applicable for supply at destination as shown in tender Schedules and valid for one year, i.e., for the period of contract, no price escalation as per the tender formula will he paid but any increase in excise duty and sales tax shall have to be paid as per the keen conditions of the tender. 3. Original tenders and Nos. are returned herewith. The same may please be acknowledged. 4. This issues with the concurrence of honourable chairman and managing director, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited dated May 28, 1992 on Nigam's file of even number. Sd/- B. S. Rami Deputy Manager (N) S.S.N.N.L. Encl : Six tender in original." A bare look at the document would go to show that the rate at which cement from J.K. Cement had been accepted by Sardar Saroyar Nigam Ltd. was substantially the same as negotiated with the manufacturers from Gujarat. Not only this, the document shows that the order placed with J.K. Cement is of much lesser quantity than the orders placed with other manufacturers in Gujarat. Not only this, the document shows that the order placed with J.K. Cement is of much lesser quantity than the orders placed with other manufacturers in Gujarat. Hence, the allegation that the lowered rates of inter-State sales tax prejudicially affected the sale of cement by manufacturers in Gujarat, is not well-founded and has not been satisfactorily established. No document has been placed on record to show that after issue of impugned Notification dated March 7, 1994, the prices at which Rajasthan cement was being sold in Gujarat were substantially lower than the prices of cement manufactured in Gujarat. Hence, when the contesting respondents challenge the assertion of the petitioners on this score, the ipse dixit of the petitioners, without any proper supporting material cannot be accepted. 23. That cement from Rajasthan was being sold in Gujarat on a larger scale, than the cement manufactured in Gujarat - is not necessarily an index of the cheapness of the Rajasthan cement but this factor could be explained on a number of hypothesis. The quality of cement would be one factor. It is a well-known fact that quality of a product coupled with intensive publicity may boost up sales even though other comparable goods may be available even at cheaper price. Hence, the petitioners have failed to establish the proposition that because of reduction in the rate of sales tax, by the impugned notification, the interests of the cement manufacturers in Gujarat have been prejudicially affected. 24. On the factual aspect, one assertion was made that the impugned notification may lead to tax avoidance/evasion on a large scale. The contention deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection and belongs to the realm of fertile imagination and hypothesis. The impugned notification has laid down terms and conditions which adequately take due care of this remote possibility. Condition Nos. 1 and 2 which form part of the impugned notification, adequately protect the interests of Revenue. Actually, the Revenue is the best judge of its interests. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was the best judge of the interests of the State and it has not made any grievance on this score. Rather, in the joint reply of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, this assertion has been stoutly denied. Hence, we do not find any merit in this contention, as well. 25. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was the best judge of the interests of the State and it has not made any grievance on this score. Rather, in the joint reply of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, this assertion has been stoutly denied. Hence, we do not find any merit in this contention, as well. 25. The petitioners took care to prepare a list of as many as five semi-Government and 32 private (unregistered) dealers to show that such persons had been taking advantage of lower rate of tax of cement manufactured in Rajasthan. They very conveniently forgot to mention the rates at which Rajasthan cement was being purchased by these consumers and the comparative prices at which Gujarat manufactured cement was being purchased by them. Thus, they have not been able to show in any manner that Gujarat cement was being purchased at substantially higher rates as compared to Rajasthan cement. 26. This takes us to the consideration of the principal legal contention raised by the petitioners earlier before the apex Court, and now before us that the present petitions are entirely covered by the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305; AIR 1988 SC 567 . On a careful reading of the said judgment, we find that on facts that case was altogether different. Two notifications issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, one issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the other issued by the Government of Karnataka were challenged in that case. By both the notifications, which were in identical terms, the Central sales tax was reduced to 2 per cent. 27. In none of the two notifications impugned in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 , a condition had been incorporated as we find in the impugned notifications. The averments of the petitioners in the said writ petition were not even contested by the State of Karnataka and hence the averments on facts had been accepted at the face value. Even in the counter of the State of Andhra Pradesh, it had been admitted that since indigenous cement had to be sold within the State, and bulk consumers in the State were finding cement manufactured outside the State cheaper hence the reduction was made. Even in the counter of the State of Andhra Pradesh, it had been admitted that since indigenous cement had to be sold within the State, and bulk consumers in the State were finding cement manufactured outside the State cheaper hence the reduction was made. It was in the context of the admitted facts that the apex Court found that the offending notifications were bad. In the cases at hand, the factual matrix is quite distinguishable and is not at all similar to facts obtainable in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 30 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 . 28. The impact of transportation charges and handling charges in respect of cement manufactured in a State and sold in another was not a subject-matter of consideration before the apex Court at all and this feature also distinguishes the cases in hand from the said case. 29. In a semi-unitary and semi-federal Constitution, like ours, balancing of the competing claims of the different federating units presents a unique and ticklish problem. It is obligatory and pre-emptory to reconcile interests of the State with the interests of the nation as a whole. Economic unity and welfare of the country has to be harmonised with varying needs of the various States. One cannot be starved at the expense of the other. To our mind, the collocation of articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India lays down the following guiding factors : (i) Trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free-subject to the other provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution of India (article 301). (ii) Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in public interest (article 302) (iii) "Public interest" is the paramount factor and any, restrictions imposed by the Parliament have to conform to this singular norm. Such a restriction could be in form of a taxation measure, as well. The Central Sales Tax Act is an instance of such a restriction. Such a restriction could be in form of a taxation measure, as well. The Central Sales Tax Act is an instance of such a restriction. (iv) Embargo has been placed on the powers of the Parliament and the State Legislature to make any law giving or authorising the giving of any preference to one State over another, or making, or authorising the making of any discrimination between one State and another. This is notwithstanding the entries in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule. This is, however, subject to the restrictions contained in clause (2) of article 303 of the Constitution of India. (v) The Legislature of a State, notwithstanding anything in article 301 or 303 of the Constitution, may by law - (a) impose on goods imported from other States (or the Union territories) any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject, so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced; and (b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest : Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President. 30. The clear import of this article is that it does not deprive a State of power to levy taxes on imported goods if such taxes are also imposed on the goods manufactured in the State. Clause (b) empowers a State to impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within the State as may be required in the public interest. Thus there are two limitations : (i) the restrictions must be reasonable, and (ii) they must be required in the public interest. Moreover, a Bill authorising such restrictions must receive the previous sanction of the President. 31. Here, we may refer to the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act under which the impugned notification was issued. The said section reads as follows : "8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Moreover, a Bill authorising such restrictions must receive the previous sanction of the President. 31. Here, we may refer to the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act under which the impugned notification was issued. The said section reads as follows : "8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce - (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall he liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent. of his turnover. (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as, the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1) - (a) in the case of declared goods, shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State; and (b) in the case of goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent. or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1-A) of section 6 or in sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-seedon (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent. (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation. (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. (3) The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) - (a) (omitted); (b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate, of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale; (d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c). (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) 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 to 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. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, direct, - (a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification; and (b) that in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any person or to such class of persons as may be specified in the notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification." 32. A bare look at sub-section (5) of this section goes to show that the State Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest, by notification in official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein direct any of the two things to he done as specified in clause (a) or (b) of this sub-section. The exercise of this power in the present case, has been specifically stated to be in "public interest" based on satisfaction of the State Government. We have to presume this statement to be true unless rebutted satisfactorily. 33. In the writ petitions specific reliance has been placed on paras (11), (12), (14) and (15) of Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 , which were of general nature and as demonstrated by us, have no application to the facts of the present cases. These paras/their gists have been quoted in the writ petition and we need not encumber this judgment by reproducing them, for the reason that on facts they have no applicability. 34. Learned Advocate-General cited certain rulings of the apex Court in support of his contention that the decision in Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 had laid down law contrary to its earlier and later dicta in other cases but we need not enter into this aspect because we are of categorical opinion that Indian Cement's case [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 has no application to the facts of the present cases. 35. However, we feel inclined to quote the following classic observations made in State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); AIR 1969 SC 147 wherein a five Judges Bench observed : "........... The flow of trade does not necessarily depend upon the rates of sales tax : it depends upon a variety of factors, such as the source of supply, place of consumption, existence of trade channels, the rates of freight, trading facilities, availability of efficient transport and other facilities for carrying on trade. Instances can easily be imagined of cases in which notwithstanding the lower rate of tax in a particular part of the country goods may be purchased from another part, where a higher rate of tax prevails. Instances can easily be imagined of cases in which notwithstanding the lower rate of tax in a particular part of the country goods may be purchased from another part, where a higher rate of tax prevails. Supposing in a particular State in respect of a commodity, the rate of tax is 2 per cent., but if the benefit of that low rate is offset by the freight which a merchant in another State, may have to pay for carrying that commodity over a long distance, the merchant would be willing to purchase the goods from a nearer State, even though the rate of tax in that State may be higher. Existence of long-standing business relations, availability of communications, credit facilities and a host of other factors - natural and business - enter into the maintenance of trade relations, and the free-flow of trade cannot necessarily be deemed to have been obstructed merely because in a particular State the rate of tax on sales is higher than the rates prevailing in other States." (at pages 388-389 of STC; from para 14 of AIR) It further observed ........... The rate which a State Legislature imposes in respect of inter-State transactions in a particular commodity must depend upon a variety of factors. A State may be led to impose a high rate of tax on a commodity either when it is not consumed at all within the State, or if it feels that the burden which is falling on consumers within the State will be more than offset by the gain in revenue ultimately derived from outside consumers. The imposition of rates of sales tax is normally influenced by factors political and economic. If the rate is so high as to drive away prospective traders from purchasing a commodity and to resort to other sources of supply, in its own interest the State will adjust the rate to attract purchasers. Again, in a democratic constitution political forces would operate against the levy of an unduly high rate of tax. The rate of tax on sales of a commodity may not ordinarily be based on arbitrary considerations, but in the light of the facility of trade in a particular commodity, the market conditions - internal and external - and the likelihood of consumers not being scared away by the price which includes a high rate of tax. The rate of tax on sales of a commodity may not ordinarily be based on arbitrary considerations, but in the light of the facility of trade in a particular commodity, the market conditions - internal and external - and the likelihood of consumers not being scared away by the price which includes a high rate of tax. Attention must also be directed to sub-section (5) of section 8 which authorises the State Government, notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, in the public interest to waive tax or impose tax on sales at a lower rate on inter-State trade or commerce. It is clear that the Legislature has contemplated that elasticity of rates consistent with economic forces is clearly intended to be maintained." (at pages 389-390 of STC; from para 16 of AIR) To our mind, these observations support the view, we have taken in these cases that petitioners have failed to show that the impugned notification(s) were in any way intended or calculated to impede free-flow of trade or were intended and calculated to give any undue preference to manufacturers of cement in Rajasthan. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed great reliance upon the following observations at page 315 of STC; 573 of AIR of Indian Cement's ruling [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 abstracted from the decision in State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); AIR 1969 SC 147 : "Sub-section (5) of section 8 provides for giving individual exemptions in public interest. Such a power is there in all taxation measures. It is to provide for unforeseen contingencies. Take for example, when there was famine in Bihar, if a dealer in Punjab had undertaken to sell goods to a charitable society in that State at a reasonable price for distribution to those who were starving, it would have been in public interest if the Punjab Government had exempted that dealer from paying sales tax. Such a power cannot immediately or directly affect the free-flow of trade. The power in question cannot be said to be bad. If there is any misuse of that power, the same can be challenged." (at page 399 of [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); 163 of AIR 1969 SC 147 ). To our mind, these observations are only illustrative and not exhaustive and have no application to the present cases. The power in question cannot be said to be bad. If there is any misuse of that power, the same can be challenged." (at page 399 of [1968] 22 STC 376 (SC); 163 of AIR 1969 SC 147 ). To our mind, these observations are only illustrative and not exhaustive and have no application to the present cases. In the present case, no misuse of the power has been established. 37. In Indian Cement's case [1988] 69 STC 305 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 567 itself, the apex Court has quoted at page 315 of STC; 573 of AIR : "There is also no doubt that exercise of the power to tax may normally be presumed to be in 'public interest'." When it is so, a heavy burden lay on the petitioners to dislodge this presumption. They have failed to discharge this heavy burden. 38. Accordingly, we find no merit in these writ petitions and dismiss them being devoid of merit. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.