Judgment :- K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Special Tribunal in O.P.No.681 of 2002 dated 4.9.2002. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the dealer and the assessee in the books of the 2nd respondent-Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. He was paying the tax under Section 7(E) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in compounding method provided. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which has been introduced from 2.6.2000 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) of Section 3, every dealer other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whose total turnover for a year exceeds three lakhs of rupees, but does not exceed ten lakhs of rupees, shall not be liable to pay tax on the first three lakhs of rupees of his total turnover provided that no amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax has been collected by him under this Act in respect of that first three lakhs of rupees. Taking the clue from this Section, it seems that the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Commercial Tax under Section 28-A of the Act for clarification whether the person like the dealer, who opted to pay the tax in compounding way under Section 7(E) of the Act is entitled to exclude the first three lakhs of rupees of turnover for the purpose of payment of tax even under Section 7(E) of the Act. The Commissioner by clarification letter dated 4.6.2002 clarified that tax payable under Section 3(2) or Section 4 is subject to the provision of Section 3(1). But the payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(E) is not subject to the provisions of Section 3(1). Hence the concession provided in Section 3(1)(b) is not applicable to the dealers paying tax under Section 7(E). Dealer opting to pay tax under Section 7(E) has to pay tax on the total turnover and cannot claim exemption on the first Rupees Three lakhs of turnover. This clarification has been put in issue before the Special Tribunal. Hence the concession provided in Section 3(1)(b) is not applicable to the dealers paying tax under Section 7(E). Dealer opting to pay tax under Section 7(E) has to pay tax on the total turnover and cannot claim exemption on the first Rupees Three lakhs of turnover. This clarification has been put in issue before the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal also after taking into consideration of the relevant provisions, i.e., Section 3 and Section 7(E)of the Act has non-suited the petitioner for the exemption of first Rupees Three lakhs of turnover while making the payment at compounding rate under Section 7(E)of the Act. This order is now put in issue before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 3(1)(b) has been introduced subsequently, i.e., from 2.6.2000, but whereas Section 7(E) has been introduced from 1996 onwards and the petitioner was paying the tax under Section 7(E) in the compounding rate. Because of the introduction of the provision of Section 3(1)(b), the petitioner is very much entitled to exclude the first three lakhs of rupees of turnover from payment of tax even under Section 7(E) of the Act. We are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the simple ground that Sections 3 and 3(1)(b) are regular charging Sections and Section 7(E) is a compounding provision. If the dealer opts for compounding, he has to pay a fixed rate of tax at the rate of 3 per cent irrespective of the regular rate of tax as provided in the schedule to the Act. He can also have the benefit of not maintaining any other books except the minimum books as stated in Section 7(E) of the Act itself. This hustle free method of assessment, which is only optional cannot be compared with the regular charging sections. That is the precise reason for which compounding is allowed and the dealers are also seeking for the compounding of tax. On the very reading of the provisions, we are of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot at all be accepted and the clarification given by the Commissioner is absolutely correct in terms of the provisions. Hence we are declined to entertain the Writ Petition. 4.The Writ Petition is dismissed. On the very reading of the provisions, we are of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot at all be accepted and the clarification given by the Commissioner is absolutely correct in terms of the provisions. Hence we are declined to entertain the Writ Petition. 4.The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.M.P is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.