Judgment :- M.S. JANARTHANAM, J. The assessee-dealers-Tvl. Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Mallanginar, Virudhunagar are dealers in cotton yarn. They, it appears did not file "C" forms for inter-State sales of cotton yarn effected for Rs. 3, 31, 96, 672 for the assessment year 1993-94. Under entry No. 3 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 - for short "TNGSTA"), as it stood then, cotton yarn, which was exigible to tax at three per cent, was reduced to two per cent of sale by any dealer with effect from October 7, 1988 pursuant to the Notification G.O.P. No. 1316/CT & RE, dated October 7, 1988, and Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/144(k)/88 and Gazette dated October 7, 1988 (effective from October 7, 1988). Since the turnover of the assessee-dealers exceeded rupees one crore and odd, additional sales tax was leviable at two per cent. Since "C" forms had not been produced, the assessing officer sought to levy tax on the said turnover at double the rate, that is to say 2 + 2 = 4 x 2 = 8 per cent as per section 8(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956 - for short "the CSTA") and accordingly levied the tax. 2. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed appeal in C.S.T. No. 300 of 1995 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Virudhunagar (for short "the AAC"), who, in turn, confirmed the assessment, as made by the assessing officer, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Virudhunagar. 3. The assessee-dealers filed further appeal in T.A. No. 216 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai-600 104 (for short "the Tribunal"). 4. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal, modifying the order of the AAC gets reflected in paragraph 13 of its order, as below : "13. In respect of the item in question covered in this appeal - cotton yarn, the rate of tax applicable is 2 per cent as per notification dated March 19, 1976. The cotton yarn attracts no liability under the Surcharge Act but attracts liability under the Additional Sales Tax Act. As the turnover of the appellants exceeded rupees one crore, additional tax is attracted at 2 per cent. The cotton yarn attracts no liability under the Surcharge Act but attracts liability under the Additional Sales Tax Act. As the turnover of the appellants exceeded rupees one crore, additional tax is attracted at 2 per cent. Thus, the rate of tax in the appellants case would come to 4 per cent for the goods sold in the course of inter-State sales (inclusive of 2 per cent additional sales tax) even without C form. Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to apply the rate of tax at 4 per cent in the assessment completed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, as above, the assessee-dealers resorted to the present action - Tax Case (Revision) No. 26 of 1998. 6. Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers, would submit that any modified order of the Tribunal, as relatable to the imposition of the additional sales tax at 2 per cent is not at all sustainable in law, inasmuch as a notification had been issued under sub-section (5) of section8 of the CSTA restricting the tax payable under the Act by the assessee-dealers to a minimum rate of two per cent. He seeks support for canvassing such a position from two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases in (1) Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax v. Janatha Expeller Co. and (2) Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.) Ltd. 7. Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the Revenue, though would concede the position of law, as expounded by the decisions cited by the said learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers, yet would state that the modified order of the Tribunal imposing levy of tax at two per cent, as per the aforesaid notification, even without C forms, is not legally correct and what the Tribunal ought to have done was that the levy of tax at two per cent must have been doubled, that is to say, levy of tax at four per cent, under the sanguine provisions adumbrated under section 8(2)(a) of the CSTA. He would seek support for his submission from the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products. 8. He would seek support for his submission from the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products. 8. From the analysis of rival submissions of either learned counsel, what transpires is that learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the Revenue actually concedes and states that the levy of additional sales tax at two per cent, as had been imposed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and therefore it is, he has no objection for the deletion of such a levy. What further transpires is that the said learned Special Government Pleader would seek to assail the levy of tax at two per cent, pursuant to the aforesaid notification, even without the filing of "C" forms. According to him, the levy of two per cent, as per the said notification is impermissible in law, without the production of "C" forms. What he would further say is that the reduced rate of two per cent under the notification for the sale of cotton yarn is, after all, nothing but a reduction of four per cent to two per cent under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the CSTA. For the reduced rate to operate, he would say, the performance of the condition, as had been prescribed under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CSTA is implicitly necessary and that such performance of a feat is not at all dispensed with and for such position, as already indicated, he would rely upon the decision in Sarvotam Vegetables Products. 9. The moot or vexed question that crops up for consideration here is as to : Whether it is impermissible for the said learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the Revenue to rake up such a question, when especially he has not filed a revision before this Court attacking the sustainability or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal in imposing the levy of tax at two per cent, as per the aforesaid notification even without the filling of "C" forms. 10. The moot question so posed can very well be answered, by referring to the observations of their Lordships of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company reflecting thus : ........ An appellate authority under the taxing enactments sits in appeal, only in a manner of speaking. 10. The moot question so posed can very well be answered, by referring to the observations of their Lordships of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company reflecting thus : ........ An appellate authority under the taxing enactments sits in appeal, only in a manner of speaking. What it does, functionally, is only to adjust the assessment of the appellant in accordance with the facts on the record and in accordance with the law laid down by the Legislative. An appeal is a continuation of the process of assessment, and an assessment is but another name for adjustment of the tax liability to accord with the taxable event in the particular tax-prayer's case. There can be no analogy or parallel between a tax appeal and an appeal, say, in civil cases. A civil appeal, like a law suit in the court of first instance out of which it arise, is really and truly an adversary proceeding, that is to say, controversy or tussle over mutual rights and obligations between contesting litigants ranged against each other as opponents. A tax appeal is quite different. Even as the assessing authority is not the tax-prayer's 'opponent', in the strictly procedural sense of the term, so too the appellate authority sitting in appeal over the assessing authority's order of assessment is not strictly an arbitral Tribunal deciding a contested issue between two litigants ranged on opposite sides. In a tax appeal, the appellate authority is very much committed to the assessment process. The appellate authority can itself enter the arena of assessment, either by pursuing further investigation or causing further investigation to be done. It can do so on its own initiative, without being prodded by any of the parties. It can enhance the assessment, taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by the tax-payer's appeal, even though the appeal itself has been mooted only with a view to a reduction in the assessment. These are special and exceptional attributes of the jurisdiction of a tax appellate authority. These attributes underline the truth that the appellate authority is no different, functionally and substantially, from the assessing authority itself. "11. No doubt true it is, this Court is a revisional authority. These are special and exceptional attributes of the jurisdiction of a tax appellate authority. These attributes underline the truth that the appellate authority is no different, functionally and substantially, from the assessing authority itself. "11. No doubt true it is, this Court is a revisional authority. This Court, as a revisional authority, is definitely possessed of the power to intervene and interfere with the order of the Tribunal, if travesty of justice results in to the parties by wrong construction or interpretation of the provisions of law. If such a mistake of law is not rectified, while sitting in revision, not only nor the manifested injustice resulted to the party aggrieved could at all be removed, but also such injustice would be inflicted on the litigant public, in the system of administration of law. The maxim is that the courts of law should put an end to litigations, and not instigate further litigations - a sanguine principle to be followed for preventing docket explosion. In this view of the matter, we rather feel that the question raked up by the said learned Special Government Pleader has to be necessarily answered, in the interest of one and all concerned. 12. The apex Court of this country, in the case of State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar, in the process of construction and interpretation of section 8 of the CSTA dealt in larger exposition of law in bringing out, of course, in a scintillating fashion, the scheme underlying therein relatable to imposition of tax on sales inter-State of various categories at different rates, besides providing for giving enough exemption or reduction in tax, in public interest, to meet unforeseen contingencies, without in the least affecting or causing serious repercussion, in the free-flow of inter-State trade, in the relevant paragraphs (at pages 398-400), which read, as under : We shall now examine the purpose behind section8 of the Act, which fixes rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade, commerce and inter-course. The Act divides inter-State sales into four categories, namely - (i) sales to Government, (ii) sales of goods which are declared to be of special importance in the inter-State trade and commerce, (iii) sales to registered dealers, and (iv) sales to others. Good many sales in the course of inter-State sales are made to Governments. The Act divides inter-State sales into four categories, namely - (i) sales to Government, (ii) sales of goods which are declared to be of special importance in the inter-State trade and commerce, (iii) sales to registered dealers, and (iv) sales to others. Good many sales in the course of inter-State sales are made to Governments. In a welfare State like ours, public sector is in charge of various industries, which require raw material from various parts of the country. The Governments also require consumer goods of various types for its governmental functions as well as for its economic activities. A uniform rate is fixed for those sales under section 8(1)(a). Hence in respect of an important segment of inter-State sales the rate is uniform, no doubt subjects to section 8(2A), the scope of which I shall discuss a little later.Section 14 declares that goods enumerated therein are goods of special importance in the inter-State trade and commerce. Section 15 prescribes the restrictions and conditions under which sales tax in respect of the turnover relating to those goods may be levied. One of the conditions prescribed at the relevant time was that tax should not be more than two per centum of the turnover. Further in respect of those goods only a single point taxation is permissible. The declared goods constitute a large portion of the goods sold in inter-State trade. The incidence of taxation on those goods is such that it could not have had any serious repercussion in inter-State trade. Section 8(1)(b) regulates the sales tax leviable on sales to registered dealers in the course of inter-State sales. The maximum rate fixed at the relevant time was two per centum of the turnover. All that the registered dealer has to do is to get included in his certificate of registration goods of the class or classes which he proposes to purchase as being intended for resale by him or for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. Here again, the incidence of taxation is so low as ordinarily not to affect the free-flow of trade. This takes us to the remaining sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. By and large, these sales are made to unregistered dealers. Here again, the incidence of taxation is so low as ordinarily not to affect the free-flow of trade. This takes us to the remaining sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. By and large, these sales are made to unregistered dealers. Here again, so far as the declared goods are concerned, tax has to be levied at the rate applicable to local sales, as provided in section 8(2)(a). Then we come to clause (b) of section 8(2), which deals with goods other than declared goods. Here the law at the relevant time was that the tax shall be calculated at the rate of seven percentum of the turnover or at the rate applicable to sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher. As could be seen from the report of the Taxation Enquiry Committee, the main reason for this provision was to prevent as far as possible the evasion of sales tax. The Parliament was anxious that inter-State trade should be canalised through registered dealers over whom the appropriate Government has a great deal of control. It is not very easy for them to evade tax. A measure which is intended to check the evasion of tax is undoubtedly a valid measure. Further, inter-State trade carried on through dealers coming within section 8(2), must be in the very nature of things very little. It is in public interest to see that in the guise of freedom of trade, they do not evade the payment of tax. If the sales tax they have to pay is as high or even higher than intra-State sales tax then they will be constrained to register themselves and pay the tax legitimately due. The impact of this provision on inter-State trade is bound to be negligible, but at the same time it is an effective safeguard against evasion of tax.Section 8(2A) is incorporated with a view to see that the consumers in the States to which goods are imported are not placed at a disadvantages as compared to the consumers in the State from which the goods are imported. In fact this provision is bound to facilitate inter-State trade. The purpose behind this section is to see that the State Governments do not place the local consumers in a better position than the consumers outside. Sub-section (5) of section 8 provides for giving individual exemptions in public interest. In fact this provision is bound to facilitate inter-State trade. The purpose behind this section is to see that the State Governments do not place the local consumers in a better position than the consumers outside. 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. It must be remembered that under the present conditions the power to tax is not merely used for the purpose of collecting revenue; it is a powerful social instrument, in particular, an instrument which can be effectively used for correcting economic maladjustments. While the Legislature must provide in the law for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies, still some discretionary power has to be given to the executive to meet unexpected situations. If we bear in mind the fact that sales tax on inter-State sales is levied for the benefit of the States and the further fact that each one of the State Governments in its own interest is bound to create the best possible condition for the growth of industry and commerce in that State, it is reasonable to assume that they will not be blind to economic forces. All that one has to guard against is to see that they do not, by having recourse to their taxation power, obstruct the flow of trade into their States. In the normal course they will be interested in seeing that goods produced in their States are sold outside. Reasonably sufficient safeguards against the free flow of trade into a State have been provided by the provisions of the Act, firstly, by providing for the levy of sales tax in the State in which the goods are produced, and, secondly, by placing various restrictions on the power of the States in fixing the rates." 13. Reasonably sufficient safeguards against the free flow of trade into a State have been provided by the provisions of the Act, firstly, by providing for the levy of sales tax in the State in which the goods are produced, and, secondly, by placing various restrictions on the power of the States in fixing the rates." 13. Sub-section (5) of section 8 of CSTA reads as under : " 8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (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; (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." 13A. The said sub-section starts with a non obstante clause," notwithstanding anything contained in this section ". This sort of a non obstante clause overrides the other provisions of the sub-section, namely, sub-sections (1) to (4) thereof. The said sub-section starts with a non obstante clause," notwithstanding anything contained in this section ". This sort of a non obstante clause overrides the other provisions of the sub-section, namely, sub-sections (1) to (4) thereof. Under this sub-section, power inheres in favour of the Government to grant exemption of tax to any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of sales effected by him or to reduce the rates of tax lower than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or to grant exemptions in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such class of goods, or to reduce the rate of tax to a lower rate in respect of those goods than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thereof. This sort of a power has to be exercised by the State Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest and this can be done by the issuance of a notification in the official gazette and subject to such conditions, as may be specified therein. 14. The relevant notification issued reflects as below :" * Notification No. II(1)CTRE/139(b)/76 dated the 19th March, 1976. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Tamil Nadu, having been satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs - (i)............... (ii) that the tax payable under the said Act by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Tamil Nadu in respect of the sale by him of cotton yarn in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be calculated at the lower rate of two per cent. "15. For a proper understanding of the notification, extracted as above, the Board issued an administrative circular and the circular so issued reads as below :" * Board's Ref. A2/1660/76, dated 19th April, 1976 : The Government have reduced the rate of tax on the sales of cotton yarn in the course of inter-State trade to 2 per cent. This means sales of yarn to registered or unregistered dealers will have to be taxed at 2 per cent whether they are covered by 'C' forms or not. "16. A2/1660/76, dated 19th April, 1976 : The Government have reduced the rate of tax on the sales of cotton yarn in the course of inter-State trade to 2 per cent. This means sales of yarn to registered or unregistered dealers will have to be taxed at 2 per cent whether they are covered by 'C' forms or not. "16. It appears a notification in No. II(1)/CTRE/188(a)/82 dated June 19, 1982 has been issued and the same reads, as under :" * In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), the Governor of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that the tax payable by any dealer under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of section8 of the said Act in respect of sales of cotton waste in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the rate of four per cent. 2. The notification hereby issued shall come into force from the 1st July, 1982. "17. Tvl. Southern India Mills Association, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018 and the Southern India Cotton Waste Merchants and Exporters Association, 92, Thiruvenkatasamy Road, Coimbatore-641 002, it appears, gave a representation dated December 30, 1996 to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 seeking certain clarifications as respects the filing of "C" forms in respect of the Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/188(a)/82 dated June 19, 1982 issued under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA. In response to the representations so made, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5, in his letter No. D. Dis./Acts Cell/III/44-46/97 date July 11, 1997 clarified the position to those two associations, besides marking a copy thereof to the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore. The clarification issued under the said letter reads as below :" * Tvl. Southern India Mills Association and the Southern India Cotton Waste Merchants and Exporters Association, Coimbatore are informed that their representation that the notification given for reduced rate is under section 8(2)(b) and the judgment will not apply to their case, is not correct. The clarification issued under the said letter reads as below :" * Tvl. Southern India Mills Association and the Southern India Cotton Waste Merchants and Exporters Association, Coimbatore are informed that their representation that the notification given for reduced rate is under section 8(2)(b) and the judgment will not apply to their case, is not correct. The judgment of the Supreme Court of India (State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products) dated April 9, 1996 cover all the transactions for which the notification is issued under section8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act reducing the rate of tax under section 8(2)(b) or otherwise. In this connection, instructions were also issued to all Deputy Commissioners not to pass orders applying the principles for the assessment relating to the period prior to April 1, 1996 till the orders of the Government are received based on our decision taken from this office and the orders are awaited from the Government. "18. Our attention has now been drawn to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No. 60 of 1997), which has received the assent of the Governor on the October 28, 1997, and had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary No. 560, Part IV, section 2, dated November 6, 1997, at page 315. (a) Clause (b) of sub-section(2) of section1 of the said Amendment Act prescribes that section 4 thereof shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April, 1996 and clause (c) of the said sub-section provides that section11 to the said Amendment Act shall come into force on the first day of April, 1998. Thus, the operation of section 4 though had the retrospective effect, section 11 had been postponed beyond the date of publication of the Amendment Act, which event happened, as already stated, on November 6, 1997. (b) So far as the other provisions of the said Amendment Act are concerned, it goes without saying that they are to be in operation on and from November 6, 1997, the date of publication of the said Amendment Act, as indicated in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 1 thereof. 19. Section 7 of the said Amendment Act inserted section 28-A to the Principal Act and the said inserted section, namely, section 28-A reads as under :" * 28-A. Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 19. Section 7 of the said Amendment Act inserted section 28-A to the Principal Act and the said inserted section, namely, section 28-A reads as under :" * 28-A. Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. - (1) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on an application by a registered dealers, may clarify and point concerning the rate of tax under the Act. Such clarification shall be applicable to the goods specified in the application : Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by proof of payment of such fee, paid in such manner, as may be prescribed.(2) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of uniformity in the work of assessment and collection of tax, clarify any point concerning the rate of tax under this Act or the procedure relating to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under this Act. (3) All persons working under the control of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall observe and follow the clarification issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2). "20. Thus, under the new provision - section 28-A, all persons working under the control of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall observe and follow the clarification issued by him. But, the clarification issued in the instant case, was on July 7, 1997, much earlier to the coming into force of section 28-A, which came into operation, as already stated, on and from November 6, 1997. 21. Technically speaking, the clarification issued in the case on hand is not having the statutory force to be binding upon all persons, working under the control of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. But the clarification issued in the case on hand is not simply a clarification airing the opinion of the Commissioner with reference to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 and sub-section (5) thereof of the CSTA, as relatable to the rate of levy of tax. But the clarification issued in the case on hand is not simply a clarification airing the opinion of the Commissioner with reference to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 and sub-section (5) thereof of the CSTA, as relatable to the rate of levy of tax. It is to be noted that in the clarification so issued, the Commissioner has drawn the attention of the officers working under his control to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarvotam Vegetables Products and issued instructions that they had to follow the said decision in deciding cases on or after April 9, 1996, the date on which the judgment in the said case was delivered by the Supreme Court. 22. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the Revenue, though not placing any reliance on the clarifications so issued by the Commissioner in the instant case, yet, as already indicated, he would say, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarvotam Vegetables Products would govern the factual matrix of the instant case and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in levying tax at two per cent, even without the production of "C" forms is not correct and he has to levy tax at the rate of four per cent, in the sense of doubling the tax of two per cent, equal to four per cent, under clause (a), sub-section (2) of section 8 of the CSTA. 23. We shall now proceed to examine as to whether the dictum laid down in Sarvotam Vegetables Products is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 24. (a) In that case, the respondents-assesses were manufactures and/or dealers in edible oils and stainless steel sheets. During the relevant years, they effected a large number of inter-State sales to various dealers in Bombay and Gujarat. They obtained "C" forms from the purchasing dealer and submitted them in their assessment proceedings. (b) On survey and inquiry, it was found that many of the "C" forms were either not valid or not genuine. Some of them were found to have been issued to dealers other than the respondents. Accordingly, anti-evasion proceedings were commenced against the respondents. Notices were issued calling upon them to show cause why additional tax and penalty be not levied and recovered from them. Some of them were found to have been issued to dealers other than the respondents. Accordingly, anti-evasion proceedings were commenced against the respondents. Notices were issued calling upon them to show cause why additional tax and penalty be not levied and recovered from them. (c) It was at that stage, that the respondents-assesses approached the Rajasthan High Court, by way of writ petitions contending that since the inter-State sales effected by them were covered by the exemption notifications dated December 26, 1986 and April 17, 1990 and because the said notifications did not require the production of a "C" form, as a condition for availing the exemption provided thereby, they were under no obligation to produce the same and no action could be taken against them for producing alleged invalid or spurious "C" forms. It was, of course, their case that if those "C" forms were found to be invalid or spurious, the responsibility lies upon the purchasing dealers, who issued them and that they themselves were in no way responsible therefor.(d) A learned single Judge disagreed with the legal submission (based upon exemption notifications) put forward by the respondents and dismissed their writ petitions. (e) On appeal, however, the Division Bench has upheld the respondents-assesses' contention and allowed the Special Appeals (and the writ petitions) filed by the respondents assesses. (f) Appeals, however, had been preferred before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowing a batch of Special Appeals filed by the respondents-assesses. (g) What the apex Court, after taking into consideration the two notifications issued by the Government of Rajasthan under sub-section (5) of section 8 of CSTA - one dated December 26, 1986 and another dated April 17, 1990 - is relevant and the same is couched at pages 553-554 as below :" * A reading of the notification of December 26, 1986 shows that the exemption granted under the notification is not total but partial. As against 4 per cent leviable under section 8(1), the notification provides that the tax shall be paid at the rate of 1 1/2 per cent or 2 1/2 per cent, as the case may be. The exemption applies to and extends to all edible oils excluding those oils as are specified in the notification. As against 4 per cent leviable under section 8(1), the notification provides that the tax shall be paid at the rate of 1 1/2 per cent or 2 1/2 per cent, as the case may be. The exemption applies to and extends to all edible oils excluding those oils as are specified in the notification. Further, the exemption is subject to a condition, viz., that the dealer claiming the exemption imposed, satisfies the assessing authority that the oil-seeds purchased for the manufacture of such oil have been subjected to tax in accordance of with section5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, in which case, the sales tax will be charged at the rate of 1 1/2 per cent; in case the oil-seeds purchased for the manufacture of such oil have been subjected to tax under section5CC of the Rajasthan Act then the rate of tax leviable on the inter-State sale of edible oils would be 2 1/2 per cent. There is yet another condition mentioned in clause (b) of the said notification with which we are not concerned in these appeals and hence is not being referred to by us.The notification dated April 17, 1990 was issued in supersession of the aforementioned notification. This notification too exempts inter-State sales of all edible oils excluding certain oils mentioned therein. As against the tax payable at the rate of 4 per cent under section 8(1), the notification prescribes a single rate of 1 1/2 per cent provided the two conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The first condition is that the dealer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the oil-seeds used in the manufacture of such edible oil have already suffered tax under the Act at the rate of 3 per cent within the State of Rajasthan. We need not refer to the second condition since we are not concerned with it in these appeals. Now the contention of the respondents-dealers, which has found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court is this : The notifications and sub-section (5) of section 8 whereunder it has been issued, are self-contained notifications/provisions. Section 8(5) empowers the State Government to grant exemption subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose in public interest. The notifications do impose certain conditions. Section 8(5) empowers the State Government to grant exemption subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose in public interest. The notifications do impose certain conditions. They do not provide that production of a 'C' form is essential for availing the benefit of the notification. If so, no such condition should be read into notification. The only conditions which a dealer seeking to avail of the benefit of the notification is to satisfy are those mentioned in the notification and no other. In other words, the condition mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 8 cannot be insisted upon as a condition for obtaining the benefit under the notification. We are of the opinion that the said contention is misconceived and that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred grievously in accepting it.Sub-section (5) of section8 is an integral part of section 8 and the Act as such. The said power has to be exercised in public interest. The power of exemption and its exercise is to be guided by and be consistent with the provisions of the Act. More important, the levy of Central sales tax and the prescription of rate is not by the notifications but by the Act itself. Section 8(1) prescribes the rate and sub-section (4) the condition that has to be satisfied for availing of the rate in sub-section (1). What the notifications do is to reduce the rate prescribed by section 8(1) further, subject to certain conditions. The conditions prescribed by the notifications are the conditions prescribed for availing the further reduction of rate provided by the notification. The notifications merely reduce the rate of tax; they do not do away with the levy altogether. All that the notifications have done is to reduce the rate of tax from 4 per cent to 1 1/2 per cent (2 1/2 per cent, as the case may be). Separate conditions are prescribed for availing the rate (which itself is a concessional rate) prescribed in section 8(1) and for availing the further reduction provided by the notification. Those two sets of conditions are prescribed by section 8(4) and by the notifications respectively. One cannot conceive of the said notifications independent of, or apart from section 8(1). They merely reduce the rate in section 8(1) as already mentioned. Those two sets of conditions are prescribed by section 8(4) and by the notifications respectively. One cannot conceive of the said notifications independent of, or apart from section 8(1). They merely reduce the rate in section 8(1) as already mentioned. One must first satisfy the condition in section 8(4) to become eligible for the concessional rate in section 8(1). It is only thereafter that he can claim the benefit of the said notifications, for which purpose again he has to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the notifications. It is therefore wrong to think that section 8(5) or the notifications are self- contained and operated de hors the other provisions of the Act/Rules. The Division Bench has unfortunately failed to appreciate the notifications in their correct perspective. We are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal is unsustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions. "25. No one can quarrel with the proposition, as laid down by the apex Court in Sarvotam Vegetables Products and, we, as a matter of fact, bow our head in reverence to the said decision, as one binding on us under article 141 of the Constitution of India. 26. But, the question is as to whether the dictum laid down therein is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Admittedly, under the second notification issued dated April 17, 1990, in supersession of the earlier notification dated December 26, 1986, the tax payable under sub-section (1) of section 8, by any dealer having business in a State in respect of the sales by him shall be calculated at the rate of 1 1/2 per cent, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Therefore it is crystal clear that the notification issued under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA, the tax payable under sub-section (1) of section 8 thereof was reduced from 4 per cent to 1 1/2 per cent and therefore, the apex Court said that for reducing the rate to become effective and payable, it is incumbent upon the assessee-dealers to produce the relevant "C" forms, as contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 8, on the rationale or basis that the rate, as prescribed by sub-section (1) of section 8 is operable subject to the fulfilment of the conditions that had been prescribed by sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CSTA and that is all and nothing further. 27. We have reproduced the Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/139(b)/76 dated March 19, 1976 relevant for the instant case. Therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same again here. If one sifts and sans the language employed in the said notification, it will be abundantly clear that there are no areas of limitation therein, so as to restrict the operation of the notification, with reference to sub-section (1) of section 8 of the CSTA. If we refer to clause (ii) of the said notification, the words or the expressions employed therein, namely, "the tax payable under the said Act" shall be calculated at the lower rate of two per cent. Section 8 of the CSTA prescribes the rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, while section 6 is a charging provision. 28. The notification, in the instant case, does not at all say that the rate payable by the assessee-dealers is with reference to sub-section (1) of section 8 or with reference to sub-section (2) of section 8 of the CSTA. But, the words employed, as already indicated, categorically indicate that the rate of tax payable under the said Act, meaning thereby - whether it be under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 8 - shall be calculated at the lower rate of two per cent. But, the words employed, as already indicated, categorically indicate that the rate of tax payable under the said Act, meaning thereby - whether it be under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 8 - shall be calculated at the lower rate of two per cent. We have already indicated that the power of the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 8 is so wide enough to reduce the rate of tax either under sub-section (1) or (2) in respect of any dealer or in respect of sales of goods or sales of such class of goods by the issuance of a notification in the public interest, subject to such conditions, as may be specified therein, apart from having the power to exempt payment of tax in respect of inter-State sales effected. We are of the view that while issuing such a notification covering the instant case, the State Government has exercised its power to the fullest extent possible and with intent to give relief to the tax-payers, like the assessee-dealers, in the sense of calculating the levy at the lower rate of two per cent, even in cases governed by sub-section (2) of section 8 of the CSTA. 29. Sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA, which is in the nature of an exception, can permit the State Government to do with, which it otherwise cannot have done, any condition but only if it is in the public interest. Therefore, when the exercise of such a power is challenged, it is for the State Government to justify the same by explaining how it has become necessary to subject all inter-State sales to any person or dealer to payment of tax at a prescribed lower rate and also to explain how it has become necessary to dispense with the furnishing of declaration contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 8 of the CSTA in public interest. 30. "Public interest" in sub-section (5) of section 8 has to be interpreted in the context of the CSTA and articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. 30. "Public interest" in sub-section (5) of section 8 has to be interpreted in the context of the CSTA and articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. Though increase in revenue and its utilisation for the public of the State can generally be regarded to be in public interest, in the context in which it is required to be considered, that by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient, if it has the effect of going against the policy of the CSTA and the object of the constitutional provisions. [vide : Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan]. 31. This sort of a debate again arises for consideration in an action, like the present one. We have referred to this aspect of the matter to highlight or focus the point that it is perfectly open to the State Government to exercise the power inhering in its favour under the salient provisions adumbrated under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA in its fuller extent or amplitude in the public interest. 32. We may now reproduce certain notifications issued under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA reducing the rate of tax payable under sub-section (1) of section 8 or under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the CSTA thus : (i) Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/197/77 (G.O.P. No. 1357), dated September 6, 1977, Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated September 28, 1977, Part II, section 1, at page 124 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), and in supersession of the previous notification issued on the subject, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act in respect of the sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of goods made of leather or canvas or a combination of leather and canvas shall be reduced to the rate specified in sub-section(1) of section 8 of the said Act. "(ii) Notification No II(1)/CTRE/42/82 (G.O.P. No. 156) dated 8th February, 1982, Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated February 24, 1982, Part II, section 1, at page 13 :" * In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that the tax payable by any dealer under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of section8 of the said Act in respect of sales of (hand-made toys, dolls, figures and other articles of art made of paper, cloth, wood or clay or tin, or a combination of any one or more of them) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the rate of four per cent. The notification hereby issued shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. *(substituted by Notification No.II(1)/CTRE/175/85 (G.O.P. No. 1099), dated December 12, 1985, Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated December 25, 1985, Part II, section 1, at page 108.) (iii) Notification No. II/(1)/CTRE/81(c)/88 (G.O.P. No. 724), dated May 9, 1988, Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated May 9, 1988, Part II, section 1. Extraordinary (No. 181) at page 2 but cancelled by Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/52(d)/90 (G.O.P. No. 155), dated March 17, 1990 with effect from March 17, 1990, Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated March 17, 1990, Part II, section 1, Extraordinary (No. 137) at page 3 : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(5) of section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Tamil Nadu, having been satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act, in respect of the sale of all electronic goods and components in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be calculated at the rate of one per cent, subject to the condition that the dealer produces before the assessing authority a declaration in form C or a certificate in form D, appended to the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, as the case may be. 2. The notification hereby made shall come into force on the 9th May, 1988." * 33. 2. The notification hereby made shall come into force on the 9th May, 1988." * 33. From the notifications extracted as above, we are able to discern that the said notifications are merely illustrations demonstrating the conscious use of the power inhering in favour of the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA in its full or partial exercise of the power thereunder. 34. Appropriate it is, at this juncture to refer to two decisions emerging from the apex Court, namely, Janatha Expeller & Co. 1992 (856) STC 105 - former decision) and Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.). Ltd. on which, implicit reliance had been placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers in support of the submissions he made, which had already been noticed and learned Special Government Pleader representing the Revenue, acceding to such a submission, without even striking a discordant note therefor. 35. (a) In the former case, the State Government of Kerala issued a Notification S.R.O. No. 117 of 1966 dated March 8, 1966, fixing the rate of tax at one per cent on inter-State sale of coconut oil and cake. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether additional sales tax under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978 is leviable on inter-State turnover of goods, namely, oil and oil cake, which are covered by the said notification. (b) The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court answered the question as well, that the tax payable by the respondents under the CSTA would not exceed one per cent, by virtue of the Notification S.R.O. No. 117/66 issued by the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA.(c) On further appeal by way of special leave, the Supreme Court upheld the view of the High Court. (d) It appears, an issue regarding the interpretation of sub-section (2-A) of section 8 of the CSTA also seems to have been agitated before the High Court and the State's grievance is principally against the interpretation of that provision. (e) The Supreme Court said that the interpretation of that provision falls for consideration in the other appeals, which were listed before it on the day, when the matter in question was listed. (e) The Supreme Court said that the interpretation of that provision falls for consideration in the other appeals, which were listed before it on the day, when the matter in question was listed. But so far as the respondents in that appeal before the Supreme Court were concerned, the apex Court held that it was unnecessary to go into that question. Ultimately, the Supreme Court finding no merit in that appeal preferred by the State, dismissed the same with costs. 36. (a) In the latter case also, the Supreme Court held that the additional sales tax under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978 could be levied on inter-State sales or purchases of goods (the goods in those cases were goods other than declared goods), in regard to which no notification has been framed under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA, fixing a specified lower rate in the public interest. 37. Thus, it is crystal clear from the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court that it is impermissible to add additional sales tax to the lower rate of levy made in the public interest, in respect of the goods, to which a notification had been framed under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA. 38. It is not as if Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the Revenue made a concession, as noticed above, without any reason whatever. He was fully conscious of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases. Having been fully conscious of such decisions, for him to oppose for opposition sake, is not at all good - a law officer, like him, being expected to assist the court in rendering justice to the parties concerned. We may also note here that even otherwise, such sort of a concession extended by him is nothing but the manifestation or exhibition of his characteristic fairness, making submissions before court. 39. We may also note here that even otherwise, such sort of a concession extended by him is nothing but the manifestation or exhibition of his characteristic fairness, making submissions before court. 39. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal, adding the rate of levy of two per cent, by way of additional sales tax to the lower rate of levy at two per cent imposed, pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government, under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA, as noticed earlier, cannot at all be stated to be sustainable in law and therefore, such imposition deserves to be set aside. 40. For the reasons as above, we are not inclined to affix our seal of approval to the submissions, emerging from learned Special Government Pleader representing the Revenue that the decision in Sarvotam Vegetables Products is applicable on all fours to the facts of the instant case. 41. In fine, the modified order of the Tribunal is further modified by deleting the addition of levy of additional sales tax at two per cent to the rate of levy of tax at two per cent imposed upon the assessee-dealers, consequent upon the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CSTA. 42. The Tax Case (Revision) is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Petition disposed of accordingly.