R.Jayasimha Babu, J: Petitioner in W.P.No. 17981 of 1999 is the All India Association of Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchants. Petitioner in W.P. No.17982 of 1999 is V.A.S. Noorullah & Co., manufacturer and an exporter of tanned hidder and skins. They have in these writ petitions sought a declaration that the tax levied by the respondent, State of Tamil Nadu on the Raw Hides and Skins purchased and exported after tanning and finishing by the members of the petitioner-association and petitioner, is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art.286(1) (b) of the Constitution of India read with Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. Petitioners purchase raw hides and skins which after being processed by them, is exported in a dressed state. It is their contention that the two commodities, the raw hides and skins purchased by them, and the dressed hides and skins exported by them constitute one and the same commodity or goods, and therefore, the raw hides and skins cannot be subjected to purchase tax and then not exigible to tax, by virtue of Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which exempts penultimate purchases and sales from the levy of purchase sales tax in cases where, the goods exported are the same as the goods purchased, and such purchase was after, and for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for, or in relation to such export. 3. Sec.5 of the Central Sales Tax Act has been enacted in exercise of Parliament’s power under Art.286 to formulate principles for deciding as to when a sale in the course of import or export can be said to take place. 4. Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act refers to ‘those goods’ implying thereby that the goods exported and the goods purchased must be one and the same. If the goods exported constitute a different article or commodity, then the benefit of Sec.5(3) cannot be availed of. 5. “Goods” is defined in Art.366 (12) of the Constitution of India thus: “Goods” includes all materials, commodities and “articles”. 6. Sec.2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act defines “goods”: “2(d)”goods“includes all materials, articles, commodities and all other kinds of movable property, but does not include newspapers, actionable claims, stock, shares and securities.” 7. Both definitions are inclusive, and cover all materials, articles, things, and all kinds of movable property. 8. 6. Sec.2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act defines “goods”: “2(d)”goods“includes all materials, articles, commodities and all other kinds of movable property, but does not include newspapers, actionable claims, stock, shares and securities.” 7. Both definitions are inclusive, and cover all materials, articles, things, and all kinds of movable property. 8. The petitioners, as noticed earlier are dealers in hides and skins. Those commodities, or merchandise are referred to in Chapter IV of the Central Sales Tax Act, which deals with goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Sec.14 enumerates certain goods which are of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce. Sec.14 (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads thus: “Hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state” 9. This entry in Sec.14(iii) of the Central Sales Act was considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras, 15 S.T.C. 719 incidentally. The court disapproved the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Subban and Co. v. State of Madras, (1960)2 S.T.C. 173, which had interpreted Sec.14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act to mean that hides and skins, whether dressed or raw, constitute a single commodity. The Apex Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras, (supra) held that raw hides and skins, and dressed hides and skins constitute different commodities or merchandise and they could, therefore, be treated as different goods for the purposes of the State Sales Tax Act. The Court observed, “It is contended for the State that they are different commodities, and constitute two separate categories for purpose of taxation. We are inclined to the view that they form different categories”. 10. The Court did not accept the argument that tanning is only a preservative process, which made no change in the nature of the article itself. After referring to that argument, the court observed, “It is, therefore, not correct to say that the process of tanning brings about no change in the raw hides and skins, and that therefore both types of hides and skins form one commodity”. 11. After referring to that argument, the court observed, “It is, therefore, not correct to say that the process of tanning brings about no change in the raw hides and skins, and that therefore both types of hides and skins form one commodity”. 11. The Apex Court considered the question as to whether hides and skins in tanned, and untanned condition constitute different commodities, once again in the recent decision rendered by three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K.A.Anwar & Co., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 108 S.T.C. 258. The Court was therein concerned with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which provided for levy of tax separately on raw hides and skins which was to be taxed at the point or purchase, and dressed hides and skins which was to be taxed at the point of first sale. the Court upheld such levy. Before doing so, the court considered the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719. After referring to certain observations in that judgment of the Constitution Bench, the Court observed at paragraph 13 that, “From the aforesaid observations, it clearly follows that the Constitution Bench had, in no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins were not one and the same commodity.” 12. The Court in the case of K.A.Anwar & Co., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 108 S.T.C. 258 also considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders, 73 S.T.C. 228 as also the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Telangana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 93 S.T.C. 187; State of Punjab v. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal, 25 S.T.C. 52, and State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, 37 S.T.C. 319. The Court observed with regard to those cases that “it may here be noted that in none of these decisions was the attention of the learned Judges drawn to the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench in Hajee Abdul Shukoor’s Case, (1964)15 S.T.C. 719 (S.C): (1964)8 S.C.R. 217 ”. 13. The Court observed with regard to those cases that “it may here be noted that in none of these decisions was the attention of the learned Judges drawn to the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench in Hajee Abdul Shukoor’s Case, (1964)15 S.T.C. 719 (S.C): (1964)8 S.C.R. 217 ”. 13. The court in the case of Anwar, 108 S.T.C. 258 also dealt with the arguments that had been advanced before it that, the fact that two articles are mentioned in the same heading would indicate that the two articles are identical for the purpose of taxation. The court observed, “the fact that both the articles are mentioned under the same heading is also of no material consequence”. The court reiterated the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719 that, “the fact that certain articles are mentioned under the same heading in a statute, or the Constitution does not mean that they all constitute one commodity. The inclusion of several articles under the same heading may be for a reason other than that the articles constitute one and the same thing”. The Court then held that, that would mean that “merely being put under one head would not make two different commodities a single item for purposes of taxation”. 14. It is, therefore, clear from what has been stated by the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719 and, by a three Judge Bench in the later case of Anwar, 108 S.T.C. 258, that hides and skins in raw, and dressed condition constitute two different commodities, and that they are not one and the same goods. That conclusion holds true not only in cases where tax is sought to be levied on inter-state sales, but applies with equal force to cases where the goods are sought to be exported or imported. 15. The definition of “goods”, in the Constitution and the Central Sales Tax Act is the same for inter-state sales, as also for sale or purchase in the course of import or export. Goods which are different for purpose of inter-state sale, do not become one and the same when imported into or exported out of India. 16. 15. The definition of “goods”, in the Constitution and the Central Sales Tax Act is the same for inter-state sales, as also for sale or purchase in the course of import or export. Goods which are different for purpose of inter-state sale, do not become one and the same when imported into or exported out of India. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that more than one Division Bench of this Court, as also Benches of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, have held that raw hides and skins, and dressed hides and skins constitute one and the same commodity for purposes of Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Counsel in this context referred us to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Basheer & Company, 72 S.T.C. 185; the decisions of this Court in the case of Azeezur Rahman and Co., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 82 S.T.C. 355, Bawa Prime Tannery v. Joint Commissioner (C.T.) II and others, 87 S.T.C. 407; M.S.Mohamed Siddique and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu, 91 S.T.C. 336 and to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Farida Prime Tannery v. State of Karnataka, 84 S.T.C. 133. 17. Counsel also submitted that the Apex Court had decided to grant Special Leave against the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was rendered on the 5th July, 1988 as also against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court. 18. This Court in the case of Azeezur Rahman, 82 S.T.C. 355 departed from the law laid down in the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T.C. 824-827 of 1980 decided on 21st January, 1981 in which it had been held that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins were different commodities for purposes of Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Such departure was held to be justified on the ground that “issue involved herein stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahi Traders, (1989)73 S.T.C. 228 ....”. Later Benches of the Court merely followed the decision in the case of Azeezur Rahman. Such departure was held to be justified on the ground that “issue involved herein stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahi Traders, (1989)73 S.T.C. 228 ....”. Later Benches of the Court merely followed the decision in the case of Azeezur Rahman. The Karnataka High Court also in the case of Farida Prime Tannery, 84 S.T.C. 133, regarded the decision of the Apex Court in Mahi Traders as conclusive, for holding that raw, and dressed hides and skins are one and the same commodity. It distinguished the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719 by observing that the Court in that case was “..... not concerned with the meaning attributed to the pharaseology found in Sec.14(iii) of the Act.” The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohd. Basheer, 72 S.T.C. 185 rejected the argument that the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719, was conclusive on the issue, by observing that the said decision must be understood in the context of the provisions of the Act considered therein, and having regard to the contentions urged before, and considered by the Court. 19. As found by the Apex Court in the case of Anwar, 108 S.T.C. 288 the learned two Judges Bench which decided the case of Mahe Traders, 73 S.T.C. 228 had not noticed the decision of the Constitution Bench on the case of Abdul Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719. 20. In view of the binding and authoritative enunciation of the scope of Sec.14 (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Bench of three learned Judges of the Apex Court in the case of Anwar, 108 S.T.C. 258 and their authoritative elucidation of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Shukoor, 15 S.T.C. 719, it must be held that the decisions of this Court, as also of the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, are erroneous and that the earlier decision of this Court in TC 824-827 of 1980 decided on 21st January, 1981 had correctly held that the raw, and dressed hides and skins constitute two different commodities for purpose of Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 21. 21. Counsel submitted that the Bench of the Apex Court which decided the case of Anwar, 108 S.T.C. 258 had declined to interfere with the Order of the High Court regarding Export Sales. We have perused the copy of that order. The Order that was made by the Apex Court on 12.8.1997 in Civil Appeal Nos.4749-50 of 1993 and connected matters, in all of which the dealers were appellants, reads thus: “The matter has been remanded back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. We, therefore, do not pass any order. Let the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dispose of the case in accordance with law.” The Court did not hold that Sec.14 (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act should, for purposes of Sec.5 (3) be understood in a manner different from the way it should be understood in case of inter-State sales. 22. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyrelal Malhotra, 37 S.T.C. 319 “The mere fact that the substance of raw materials out of which it is made, is taxed in some other form when it was sold as a separate commercial commodity, would make no difference for purposes of law of Sales Tax. The object is to tax the sale of each commercial commodity and not the sale of the substance out of which they are made”. (Italics supplied) 23. The fact that dressed hides and skins are obtained by tanning the raw hides and skins, does not obliterate the further fact that they are two distinct commercial commodities. They do not constitute ‘same’ goods for purposes of Sec.5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, and the tax levied on the purchase of raw hides and skins which are subsequently tanned and exported, is not unconstitutional. 24. We do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. C.M.Ps. 467 and 468 of 2000 are also dismissed.