JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. This is a group of petitions. They relate to consideration and consequent decision of a solitary question. Therefore these petitions are heard as a group and are being decided by this judgment also as a group. 2. The question relates to the question of exemption of what is known as "turnover tax". It can be illustrated by reference to the relevant provisions as follows : By virtue of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the KGST Act", for short), levy of tax on sale and purchase of goods is provided. Section 5(2A) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 (Act 18 of 1987) with effect from July 1, 1987, which introduced what is now commonly known as "turnover tax" on the turnover of goods specified thereunder. It would be seen that this levy of turnover tax is apart from and in addition to the sales tax charged and levied under the said Act. In these petitions the only subject-matter of concern is the turnover tax introduced as stated above under section 5(2A) levying 1/2 per cent in nature of turnover tax on the turnover of goods coming under the First and Fifth Schedules of the Act. It is needless to state that the commodities or goods that are the subject-matter of these petitions are stated to be covered under the above Schedules referred to. 3. Section 10 empowers the State Government both in regard to exemption and reduction in the matter of taxation. The power to grant such exemption or reduction is exercised by the State Government by the issuance of a notification in the context, if such exemption or reduction is considered necessary in the public interest. 4. The subject-matter of these petitions is the notification (exhibit P1) issued by the Government of Kerala having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, to grant an exemption in respect of the turnover tax, referable to Section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act. The quarrel is not with regard to the exemption granted, but with regard to the exception in regard thereto in the following phrase "except on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer". The text of the notification is at exhibit P1, illustratively in O.P. No. 2482 of 1993 which was taken up as a specimen for further submissions in regard thereto. 5. The text of the notification is at exhibit P1, illustratively in O.P. No. 2482 of 1993 which was taken up as a specimen for further submissions in regard thereto. 5. It is explained in the notification that a turnover tax is payable by dealers whose total turnover exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs at all points of sale or purchase of goods coming under the First or Fifth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is explained further that the Government decided to restrict the levy of turnover tax on taxable turnover of sales on the first sale point of goods received on branch transfer or consignment basis only. 6. In other words, the turnover tax with regard to the goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer would only be the goods subject to a liability of the turnover tax, making it as an obvious corollary that all other goods which would normally be liable for taxation as a turnover tax are covered by the declaration of exemption in regard thereto by the impugned notification. 7. In the process it is necessary to refer to the consequent prayer in these petitions, emphasising that what is prayed for striking down is the limited part, making out an exception as regards the liability for the turnover tax, restricting it only to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer, there being no challenge to any other part of the notification except the restrictions stated above keeping goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer alone as the subject-matter of levy of turnover tax in accordance with the provisions of law. 8. It is urged that Part XIII of the Constitution of India apart from the general spirit of equality and absence of discrimination available in article 14 of the Constitution of India, trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India is a subject by itself getting formed as a group in the said Part XIII consisting of article 301 up to article 307. It is urged that trade, commerce and intercourse has to be free throughout the territory of India which is provided and guaranteed under article 301, the first article in the group, making it crystal clear by the initial emphasis that trade, commerce and intercourse shall be free subject to the other provisions of this Part (Part XIII). 9. It is urged that trade, commerce and intercourse has to be free throughout the territory of India which is provided and guaranteed under article 301, the first article in the group, making it crystal clear by the initial emphasis that trade, commerce and intercourse shall be free subject to the other provisions of this Part (Part XIII). 9. It is then urged that the Parliament gets power to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse between one State and another as may be required in the public interest. In other words as is often said in common parlance, inter-State trade is the subject-matter of the Parliament which can by law impose restrictions in regard thereto, as may be necessary in public interest. This is provided by article 302. 10. Placing reliance on article 303 it is pointed out that neither the Parliament nor the Legislature of a State can give any preference to one State over the other in the nature of a discrimination between one State and the other, emphasising that in any situation the Parliament would be supreme and cannot be prevented even in regard to a discrimination if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of dealing with a situation due to scarcity of any goods in any particular part of the country. 11. It is placed for consideration that the situation that is available through articles 301, 302 and 303 would make it abundantly clear that the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse is recognised by article 301 and it has certain exceptions, firstly in the matter of restrictions that are spoken about in article 302 in the public interest, and secondly recognising the power of the Parliament as Supreme even to the extent of legislating in regard to any discrimination if it is found necessary for the purpose of dealing with a situation arising out of scarcity of goods in any part of the country, as an exception to the general situation that neither the Parliament nor the Legislature of a State would have power to make any law giving any preference to one State over the other introducing any kind of discrimination between one State and the other. These are the factors of a general nature. 12. These are the factors of a general nature. 12. In addition thereto article 304 of this Part speaks of the Legislature of a State in isolation and makes it clear introducing a non obstante clause at the outset that irrespective of the provisions of article 301 or article 303, the State may impose any tax on goods imported from other States or the Union Territories in such a manner that there will not be any discrimination with regard to the process of taxation of similar goods manufactured or produced in the concerned State. In other words there should not be any discrimination or differentiation as regards the levy and process of taxation with reference to the goods imported on the one hand and goods manufactured or produced in the State on the other. This is what is provided by the first part of article 304 [304(a)] and this position is not without any exception thereto. It is permitted by the second part of the article [304(b)] that the State may by law impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or industry as may be required in the public interest. It is made clear that this is not an absolute power, but a recognisable power as is obvious from the proviso making it a condition that a Bill or an amendment purporting to exercise powers under clause (b) shall not be introduced or moved into the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President. 13. For the purpose of these petitions, it is undisputed that the application of these articles and consideration of their scope and power in the context would be enough and necessary. 14. It was submitted by the learned counsel that article 304 will have to be considered independently in the context of the present problem. The provision, it is submitted, prohibits legislation which would discriminate in the process of taxation between goods imported on the one hand and goods manufactured or produced in the State on the other. It is submitted that the impugned notification is the worst kind of discrimination when except me goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer, the turnover tax as such introduced by section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act gets totally exempted for an others concerned either with regard to the goods manufactured and produced in the State or imported other than the categories in question. It is submitted that discrimination is an element of differentiation between the positive aspects of prices in regard thereto in the matter of taxation. In other words, to understand the submission normally the discrimination would be seen if the rates of taxes with regard to the goods manufactured and produced within the State shows any kind of differentiation in the matter of levy with regard to the goods imported into the State. It is submitted that when the situation that gets displayed by the impugned notification is of such a nature that a tax which is levied according to the statutory provision is exempted by resort to section 10 thereof, with regard to all goods of both the categories making an exceptional situation relating to the goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer, the situation is of a superlative character in the process of discrimination. Illustratively to understand the situation, if a notification completely exempts tax on goods manufactured or produced in the State and does not choose to do so with regard to the goods imported, the situation would be worse than that can be contemplated of discrimination with regard to the rates on comparable basis. 15. It is submitted that such restrictions, although permissible if required in the public interest, would not give legislative competence in regard thereto without the previous sanction of the president as provided by the proviso in question. 16. At the other end it was submitted that what is legitimately be said to be covered by article 304 is a situation showing difference in the rates of taxation spelling out discriminatory character and a situation of exemption could not be said to be covered and required satisfaction of the test of constitutionality in regard to the requirements of the article in question. It is also submitted that in the matter of consignments and branch transfers, it needs to be noted that with regard to the goods covered by them, there would be no question of taxation in the States of their origin and therefore the emphasis as a result of the selection for taking out goods received on consignment and/or transfer will have to be understood and appreciated that with regard to these categories, refusal to include them in the process of exception would not be a discrimination in the real sense of the situation. The learned counsel submitted that the very basis relating to the goods imported on consignment and/or branch transfer, such goods would be liable only on import for the first time as a result of the peculiar nature as is obvious from the process of consignment and the branch transfer and the law in regard thereto. The learned counsel, with the help of explanatory note, urged that the decision to confine continuance of turnover taxation relating to goods received on branch transfer or consignment basis will have to be understood in the interest of justice in the context that there is no loss or there is no purpose of hostile discrimination in any sense of the term. 17. It needs to be mentioned, as is placed on record in paragraph 6 of the counter, that when by virtue of section 5(2A)(i)(g), the turnover of the goods became subject to levy of turnover tax, with regard to the turnover exceeding Rs 50 lakhs at the rate of 1/2 per cent at all points of sales or purchase, the Government had to consider various representations and objections received from the merchant community, on the basis of which a decision to restrict the levy of this turnover tax on the first sale point of goods received on branch transfer or consignment basis only. It means that the issuance of a notification toning down the levy of the turnover tax and restricting it to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfers has its origin in the demand of the merchant community. It also needs to be mentioned, as stated in the counter, that it is true that the dealers who bring goods into this State by inter-State purchase and sale of those goods in the State need not pay turnover tax, making it clear that such dealers may have to pay tax under Be Central Sales Tax Act on the goods purchased by them making by continuance of the following statement that levy of turnover tax on their sales within the State will be an additional liability on them. It is further pointed out that the goods manufactured in this State are exempted from levy of turnover tax on the sales within the State. With regard to manufactures it is made clear in the counter that the purchase of raw materials is not exempted. It is further pointed out that the goods manufactured in this State are exempted from levy of turnover tax on the sales within the State. With regard to manufactures it is made clear in the counter that the purchase of raw materials is not exempted. In other words, the question requires consideration from the point of view of justification in public interest also as is required by the provisions of article 304(b) together with the requirement of a prior sanction in regard thereto. 18. There is no dispute and it is a settled position that issuance of a notification under the provisions of section 10 of the KGST Act, 1963, would have all the characteristics of law and levy of taxation and exemption in regard thereto. 19. In fact the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court [ AIR 1961 SC 232 (Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam] had an occasion to declare the true meaning and the scope of Part XIII relating to the freedom in the matter of trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India and the process of taxation avoiding discriminatory facets. It would be found, on reference to the said decision, that article 301 envisages freedom of trade and commerce with reference to different parts of India as also freedom of movement of individuals in relation to their trade and other activities. In the process of reasoning it is specified that article 301 has reference not only to trade and commerce as ordinarily understood in common parlance, but also in relation to individuals who have to move with their goods and commodities throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is then observed that article 304 of the said Chapter makes a reference to two of its aspects : (1) dealing with the imposition of discriminatory taxes by the State Legislature, and (2) relating to imposition of reasonable restrictions thus showing that imposition of taxes discriminatory or otherwise, is a class apart from imposition of reasonable restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. In other words it would be seen that article 304 deals with the process of taxation by the State and with regard to imposition of reasonable restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, the position is not different as far as the requirements of public interest is concerned from the contents of article 302. In other words it would be seen that article 304 deals with the process of taxation by the State and with regard to imposition of reasonable restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, the position is not different as far as the requirements of public interest is concerned from the contents of article 302. In the process the provisions of article 303 are also taken into consideration to make it clear that giving of preference to one State over another or discrimination between one State and another are definitely calculated to impede the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse and therefore there is a prohibition both as regards the Parliament and also as against the Legislature of a State from enacting any law giving preference of such a character to one State over the other or any situation of any discrimination between one State and another. This is a guarantee with regard to the flow of inter-State trade from one State to Union Territory, taking necessary care and precaution to avoid discrimination as a result. 20. In the process after observing that article 304 is a class by itself dealing with the process of taxation by the State in regard to a situation with regard to the goods manufactured and produced within the State in question in comparison with the goods imported into the State in question. The provision empowers reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade by a State in question within its territory and with regard to the trade with other States. In the context article 304(b) in substance gives power to the State Legislature to do something similar to the power conferred on the Parliament by article 302 with obvious differences and this obvious difference itself is available in article 304(b) making it a condition that no Bill in regard to such a legislation imposing reasonable restrictions in public interest can be introduced without the previous sanction of the President. It is observed that this requirement is obviously inserted in order that regional economic pressures and imbalances would be required to be duly examined in the light of the interest of national economy, a aspect of such a legislation being in the public interest also should have an assurance and it is available in the requirement of the previous sanction of the president in regard thereto. The satisfaction is with regard to public interest with regard to restrictions which are of a reasonable character. 21. Although it was not necessary, observing it clearly in that context it is observed that because the requirement of public interest could not be said to be justifiable and may be deemed to be satisfied by the sanction of the president the condition of the sanction previous to the introduction of the Bill has to be appreciated with regard to its emphasis and importance. 22. The Constitution Bench in the above Atiabari Tea Co.'s case AIR 1961 SC 232 was concerned with the question of validity of tax on the carriage of goods (tea), imposing restriction in the form of taxation on the carriage a movement of such goods. 23. Thereafter the Supreme Court [1963] 14 STC 355 (Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras) had an occasion to consider the question of taxation in the commodity "hides and skins" and the provisions of rule 16(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 making discrimination between hides and skins imported from outside the State and those manufactured or produced inside the State alleged to be contravening article 304(a) of the Constitution of India Following the decision of the Constitution Bench (supra) it is held that the tax in question having the effect of discrimination between goods of one State and goods of another would have the effect of hampering the free-flow of trade which is violative of article 301 and would be valid only if it falls within the requirements of article 304(a) of the Constitution. Such a legislation in the same process of logic is held to be invalid. 24. With regard to the discriminatory process of taxation in the matter of lottery tickets of the State of Madras as compared to those of other States, the Supreme Court in [1986] 61 STC 165 (H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu) did not think otherwise, but to follow the Constitution Bench. It is observed that the purchaser gets right as a result of a sale of lottery tickets to him. It is a right of participation in the draw together with a right to claim a price contingent on the success in the draw as a process. It is observed that the purchaser gets right as a result of a sale of lottery tickets to him. It is a right of participation in the draw together with a right to claim a price contingent on the success in the draw as a process. It is observed that the impugned notification granting exemption from the sales tax with regard to the lottery tickets of the State of Tamil Nadu as against those from other States. violative of article 301 and article 301(a) of the Constitution of India could be unavoidable because the situation meted out discriminatory treatment in the matter of levy of sales tax with regard to imported lottery tickets from another State with a consequence of interference with the free-flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. The notification was struck down. It is necessary at this stage to mention that Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji (as he then was) constituted the Bench holding the notification violative as above in the case of Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC). 25. The view has not lost the track of consistency even thereafter, with regard to the process of taxation of T.V. sets in the State of Gujarat [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) (Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab), in the matter of a notification granting reduction in the rate of tax on sale of goods manufactured within the State as against higher rate of sale of goods imported from other States, on the basis of averment affecting flow of inter-State trade. Observing that up to 1981 when a uniform rate of sales tax was applicable in the State of Gujarat in the matter of turnover of electronic goods the impugned notification issued under section 49(2) thereof reducing the rate of sales tax with regard to the goods manufactured within the State of Gujarat to 6 per cent, while retaining the rate of 15 per cent in regard to the sales tax in regard to electronic goods entering the State for sale would be clearly violative of Part XIII of the Constitution, especially articles 301, 303(1) and 304 of the Constitution of India. It must be stated that article 304(b) of the Constitution of India was not required to be dealt with in the said judgment. 26. Then comes the solitary judgment taking a swing to the other side. It must be stated that article 304(b) of the Constitution of India was not required to be dealt with in the said judgment. 26. Then comes the solitary judgment taking a swing to the other side. This was in the Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) in the matter of granting of exemption from tax by the State to a special class for a limited period on special conditions, while maintaining the general rate of tax on goods manufactured by all producers in the State who do not fall within the exempted category at par with the rate applicable to imported goods. It is observed by the Supreme Court in the said decision that the concept of economic barrier must be adopted in a dynamic sense with changing conditions and in a federal polity, all the States having powers to grant exemption to a specified class for a limited period, such granting of exemption cannot be held to be contrary to the concept of economic unity. It is observed that the contents of economic unity would necessarily include the power to grant exemption or to reduce the rate of tax in special cases for achieving industrial development or to provide tax incentives to attain economic equality in growth and development. 27. It is observed that the question of economic war between the States inter se or economic disintegration of the country as such would not arise if reduction of rate of tax in special cases for achieving industrial development or to provide tax incentive to attain economic equality in growth and development is kept in the background in the matter of granting exemptions on the basis of such factors. In the process of reasoning it is observed that in matters of constitutional adjudications, the substance of the matter has to be looked into to find out whether there is any discrimination in violation of the constitutional mandate. The learned Government Pleader has taken me through the decision, not disputing that the decision is at tangent with the constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court itself. Careful and cautious perusal of this judgment also reveals that it is nowhere to be seen that in this case the Supreme Court was aware that the decision in Atiabari Tea Co.'s case AIR 1961 SC 232 was the decision of the Constitution Bench of the same court. Careful and cautious perusal of this judgment also reveals that it is nowhere to be seen that in this case the Supreme Court was aware that the decision in Atiabari Tea Co.'s case AIR 1961 SC 232 was the decision of the Constitution Bench of the same court. In fact perusal of the report especially where Atiabari Tea Co.'s case AIR 1961 SC 232 is referred to would be necessary in the context. The observations are at page 99 of the report. It is an attempt to harmonise the construction of the several provisions of the Constitution. It is observed that if is true that if a particular provision being a taxing provision or otherwise impedes directly or immediately the free-flow of trade within the Union of India, then it will be violative of article 301 of the Constitution. It has further to be borne in mind that article 301 enjoins that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. It is then observed that the first question to be examined is whether the sales tax provisions directly or immediately restrict the free-flow of trade and commerce within the meaning of article 301 of the Constitution. There is a reference to Atiabari's case AIR 1961 SC 232 with regard to the examination of relationship of articles 301 and 304. There is also a reference to the subsequent Automobile Transport's case [1963] 1 SCR 491 followed by the observations that Part XIII of the Constitution cannot be read in isolation. It is a part and parcel of a single constitutional instrument envisaging a federal scheme and containing a general scheme conferring legislative powers in respect of the matters relating to List II of the Seventh Schedule on the States. The situation is described as to what the Constitution as a developing organism should be looked at in the process. It must be stated, it is observed illustratively at page 103 of the Report that an examination of article 304(a) would reveal that what is being prohibited by this article which is really an exception to article 301, will not apply if article 301 does not apply. 28. It must be stated, it is observed illustratively at page 103 of the Report that an examination of article 304(a) would reveal that what is being prohibited by this article which is really an exception to article 301, will not apply if article 301 does not apply. 28. After referring to the earlier decisions referred to by me hereinbefore (at page 105 of the Report) it is observed that in all these decisions it has been reiterated that difference in rate of sales tax is hit by articles 301 and 304. It is then observed that the said conclusions were arrived at in the context of a controversy not in the present form and the question of exemption as such did not arise in these cases as explained later. It is added that these cases were not at all concerned with granting of exemption to a special class for a limited period on specific conditions of maintaining the general rate of tax on the goods manufactured by all those producers in the State who do not fall within the exempted category at par with the rate applicable to imported goods as we have read these cases. 29. In other words it will have to be observed that the Supreme Court in Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 was required to make out a special distinguishable case on fatal matrix where the exemption to a special class was for a limited period and therefore consequently found out deviation in approach with regard to the one which should be considered as more than established and well-settled. 30. The learned Government Pleader also laid emphasis on this decision to contend that the notification also would have to be considered having a force for a limited period having been withdrawn by the State Government during the pendency of these petitions. The Government Pleader submitted that in Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) the limited period was already floating on the surface of record where the limited period is a situation which has occurred during the pendency of this petition. The learned Government Pleader therefore submitted that this situation should go up a long way for this Court to appreciate the situation because today the notification has ceased to exist. In my judgment the question is not a question acquiring similarity during the course of the proceedings. The learned Government Pleader therefore submitted that this situation should go up a long way for this Court to appreciate the situation because today the notification has ceased to exist. In my judgment the question is not a question acquiring similarity during the course of the proceedings. No word or letter of the impugned notification even by an implication gives an impression of this temporary character. Similar is the situation with regard to exemption to a special class in the context. I have already observed that exemption is taken out as far as the rest of the world in the concerned category of tax-payers of turnover tax, but is retained only with regard to importers engaged in consignment and branch transfers. The situation as stated at the outset is worse than a discrimination. It is a tax holiday for the rest of the concerned tax-payers of turnover tax. It is not possible to follow a deviated approach in the Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) in a situation of a long line of settled view in the process as stated above especially the proclaimed declaration of the Constitution Bench in the context. 31. The position that the Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) is a situation to deal with its own factual peculiarity becomes more than formidable in regard to the statement made above when there is an occasion to travel further in the process. The judgment in that case is followed by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court [1990] 78 STC 243 (SC) (Andhra Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka). Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 is a judgment of three Judges of the Supreme Court and this subsequent judgment in Andhra Steel Corporation's case [1990] 78 STC 243 (SC) is also a judgment of three Judges. It needs to be mentioned that the then Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji presided over both the Benches. I have already stated that in the earlier judgment also Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji (as he then was at that time on October 4, 1985 - see [1986] 61 STC 165) was also a partner of the Bench of two Judges. 32. It needs to be mentioned that the then Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji presided over both the Benches. I have already stated that in the earlier judgment also Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji (as he then was at that time on October 4, 1985 - see [1986] 61 STC 165) was also a partner of the Bench of two Judges. 32. It is well-settled that if there are two judgments of the Benches of equal strength of Judges of the Supreme Court, it is the latter judgment that would have all the force of article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is also more than established that it is the judgment of the Constitution Bench on a question that would have a situation of finality in the matter of declaration of law in regard to the situation. 33. In the Andhra Steel Corporation's case [1990] 78 STC 243 (SC) relating to exemption of goods manufactured out of locally purchased raw material as against goods manufactured out of imported raw material, the Bench of equal strength of Judges has swayed the pendulum to the original situation inclined with the decision and declaration of law of the Constitution Bench in Atiabari's case AIR 1961 SC 232 . It is held that similarity contemplated in article 304(a) of the Constitution is in the nature of quality and kind of goods and not with respect to whether they were already subject to a tax or not and if it is found that at the time of the sale, the finished goods manufactured out of locally purchased raw material are not different from those manufactured out of imported raw material, different in the process of taxation would attract for violation of the provisions of article 304(a) of the Constitution. It needs to be mentioned that the line of reasoning that has a golden thread of continuity from Atiabari's case AIR 1961 SC 232 appears to have been restored, thus the proposition that the Constitution Bench decision in Atiabari's case AIR 1961 SC 232 rules the situation in the matter of violation of the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution is the rule of the line of reasoning referred to above. It will have to be said that the situation in Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC) was of a different character altogether and would have to be understood as governing the factual peculiarity and specialities. 34. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there are peculiar conditions to attract application of article 304 of the Constitution. For the proposition reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 1742 (Rattan Lal and Co. v. Assessing Authority, Patiala) in a situation of imposition of differential rates of tax by the same State on goods manufactured or produced in the State and similar goods imported in the State with regard to at alleged violation of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India The submission is in the following proposition. It is urged that when there is no differentiation of any kind with regard to the rates of tax on goods manufactured or produced in the State, article 304 would have no application if the position is shown that the tax is at the same rate and therefore could not be said to be higher in case of imported goods in any situation. Reliance is placed on the proposition with regard to the rate of tax being equal in every situation. It is submitted that where me taxing State is not imposing rates of tax on imported goods different from the rates of tax on goods manufacture or produced in the State, there is no question of violation of article 304 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on the earlier decision referred to in paragraph 14 of Rattan Lal's case [1970] 25 STC 136 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 1742 wherein the Supreme Court in State Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968] 22 STC 376; AIR 1969 SC 147 have considered a similar proposition. It is stated therein that the rate at which the State Legislature imposes in respect of inter-State transactions in a particular commodity has to be understood depending on variety of factors. The high rate of tax gets justifiable when it is not consumed at all within the State or the burden is likely to be more than offset by the gain in revenue ultimately derived from outside consumers. The high rate of tax gets justifiable when it is not consumed at all within the State or the burden is likely to be more than offset by the gain in revenue ultimately derived from outside consumers. Several factors go to make up the ultimate situation and he will have to be understood that 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 constitution not being scared away by the price which includes a high rate of tax. 35. In my judgment considering the two decisions which are also referred to subsequently, the question which is raised in these petitions and falls for consideration and consequent decision is altogether different in character. There is no question of difference in the rate of tax. The impugned notification, as stated hereinbefore, would have to be armed as worse than discriminatory in the sense that except consignments and branch transfer transactions, all others in the relevant incidence of taxation are out of the field getting total exemption as per the provisions of section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963. The situation would show that this is not a case of discrimination simpliciter, but a much worse situation of consequence in regard thereto. It will also have to be stated that the contention that this was of a temporary character in regard to its period of enforcement is also not available in the process of bringing the factual matrix of these petitions in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in Video Electronics' case [1990] 77 STC 82. 36. The learned Government Pleader also pressed into service for his submission the fact that the consignments and branch transfers are not in the process of taxation in the State of origin. This, again, would have to be understood as an irrelevant issue in the context. 37. To the contrary, as stated above, the turnover tax was introduced on the statute book by an amendment by Act No. 18 of 1987 with effect from July 1, 1987. This was a new introduction and it is stated in the counter itself that the Government considered various representations and objections received from the merchant community. 37. To the contrary, as stated above, the turnover tax was introduced on the statute book by an amendment by Act No. 18 of 1987 with effect from July 1, 1987. This was a new introduction and it is stated in the counter itself that the Government considered various representations and objections received from the merchant community. The averments in the context are already referred to as being in paragraph 6 of the counter. Reading the averments it appears that objections of the merchant community were to the effect that it is necessary to restrict the levy of turnover tax with regard to branch transfers and consignment basis alone. No wonder that the taxing authorities yielded to the pressure although it is averred in the nature of representations and objections leaving the local merchant community away from the process of taxation, leaving also other importers except consignments and branch transfers. It would be necessary to observe that the impugned notification which is in the nature of law, as stated above, is violative of the provisions of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India. If it is the contention or if it is even to the understood that it is in public interest, it will have to be said that it is not possible to understand the justifiable contention that the provisions article 304(b) especially the proviso in regard thereto would not be attracted. It is not possible to understand as to how it is possible to get out of the requirements of article 304(b) of the Constitution of India. 38. As stated above, the learned Government Pleader brought to my attention the peculiar frame up of the prayer for a declaration striking down a particular part of the notification. The Government Pleader contended that if the notification is bad, the whole notification gets struck down and a prayer for striking down the portion "expect on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer" is not understandable on any of the hypothesis. 39. In my judgment a shows an attitude of reasonableness on the part of the petitioners who do not want that those who have been given exemption should be deprived thereof by reason of an order quashing the notification in its entirety. 39. In my judgment a shows an attitude of reasonableness on the part of the petitioners who do not want that those who have been given exemption should be deprived thereof by reason of an order quashing the notification in its entirety. As observed during the course of the hearing, this is a heartening feature of the prayer of these petitioners who do not want all others who are recipients the benefits of exemptions as victims of a blind order of quashing the impugned notification. For the above reasons all these petitions succeed with an order that the impugned notification dated October 27, 1992 (exhibit P1 in O.P. No. 2482 of 1993) gets quashed and set aside as prayed, reading the following words "except on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer" are declared as unconstitutional contrary to the provisions of article 304 of the Constitution of India. Order accordingly leaving all the parties to suffer their costs. Petitions allowed.