Judgment : K. A. SWAMI, C.J. The points raised in all these tax cases filed by the assessees and also the department and the writ petitions and the writ appeals filed by the assessees have been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in T.C. (R) Petitions Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993 and W.P. Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995 (Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (105) STC 497 and opinion has been rendered on July 24, 1996. The following nine points were raised before the Full Bench : "(1) Are the provisions of section 2(r) and Explanation (2)(ii) appended thereto of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ultra vires of entry 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India ? (2) Is the provision of rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the TNGST Rules") ultra aired and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, when especially the classification, according to the said rule, of "turnover chargeable on sale" and "turnover chargeable on purchase" cannot at all be stated to have rationale or reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved ? (3) Is "planting or varietal subsidy" to be treated as consideration for the "sale" and "purchase" of sugarcane ? (4) Does it make any difference, if such subsidy is disbursed later at the time or after the supply of sugarcane (5) Are expenses incurred by the assessee-sugar mills, up to the supply to commercial nursery and cane subsidy to cane-grower on supplies from commercial nursery part of sugarcane paid/payable to cane-growers ? (6) Is supply of farm inputs at subsidised rates to be treated as consideration to the grower for supply of sugarcane ?(7) Are the transport charges incurred by the sugar mills excludible as not forming part and parcel of the price of the sugarcane sold by the sugarcane supplier ? (8) Is transport subsidy includible as consideration for the sale of sugarcane by the growers ? (9) Are development charges paid to the registering mill by the assessees-sugar mills, part of sugarcane price paid or payable to the cane growers ?" * 2. All the points have been answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. (8) Is transport subsidy includible as consideration for the sale of sugarcane by the growers ? (9) Are development charges paid to the registering mill by the assessees-sugar mills, part of sugarcane price paid or payable to the cane growers ?" * 2. All the points have been answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, these matters also are required to be disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Full Bench in the aforesaid cases. 3. However, one more question has to be considered in some of the matters in which penalties have been levied, either under section 12(3) or under section 12(5)(iii) or under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. We are of the view that the penalty levied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is excessive. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision of the Full Bench referred to above [Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (105) STC 497 (Mad.)], we are of the view that it would be just and proper if the penalty is reduced to 50 per cent of the tax assessed. 4. W.P. Nos. 15532 to 15535, 15705 and 15706 of 1995 are admitted. W.M.P. Nos. 24694 to 24697 of 1995 are ordered and production of the orders impugned is dispensed with. 5. All these matters are disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Full Bench in T.C. (R) Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993 and W.P. Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995 on July 24, 1996 [Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (105) STC 497 (Mad.)]. Further, we modify the assessment orders wherever there is penalty levied under section 12(3) or section 12(5)(iii) or section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the penalty levied there shall be reduced to 50 per cent of the tax assessed. In Writ Appeal Nos. 443 to 447 of 1994, the order of the learned single Judge shall stand modified in terms of the order passed above. We also permit the appellants to withdraw the appeals preferred by them before the appellate authorities. No costs. 6. W.M.P. Nos. 29863 and 29865 of 1992 and C.M.P. Nos. 4543 to 4547 and 7623 to 7627 of 1994 are dismissed. We also permit the appellants to withdraw the appeals preferred by them before the appellate authorities. No costs. 6. W.M.P. Nos. 29863 and 29865 of 1992 and C.M.P. Nos. 4543 to 4547 and 7623 to 7627 of 1994 are dismissed. Interim orders already passed are dissolved.