P.O. AGARWAL, J- The above mentioned batch of writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification No. FTX. 60/93/Pt/44 dated 13.12.93 issued by the Government of Assam. The writ petitioners are all dealers in tea and registered under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They used to purchase tea from the tea brokers as well as from the ten gardens and they are aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 13.12.93, whereby a tax was made payable by the brokers at the rate of two paise in the rupee. The impugned notification reads as follows:- “Notification Dated Dispur, the 13th December, 93. No. FTX. 60/93/PI/44: In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (Assam Act XII of 1993) the Governor of Assam is hereby pleased to direct that: a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and in addition to any tax leviable under any other provisions of this Act, a tax shall be payable by the broker, through whom, the tea is sold at the rate of two paise in the rupee in respect of all tea, except Orthodox tea, sold in auction at Guwahati. Provided that the provisions of sub­section (2), (5), (6) and (7) of Section 7 and sub-section (3) except Clause (vi), of Section 8 of this Act shall not apply to such broker. b) The tax shall be charged on the broker's taxable turnover which shall be arrived at the making deduction allowed only under Clause (vi) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of this Act from his gross turnover of tea sold in auction at Guwahati. c) No tax shall be payable in respect of Orthodox tea sold in auction at Guwahati. This notification is deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.7.93. Explanation 1: "Auction" means auction held under the auspices of the committee constituted by means of the State Government's notification No. MI. 168/867 72 dated 16th June, 1986 and as reconstituted from time to time. Explanation 2: "Broker" means of broker registered or recognised by the Committee constituted or reconstituted as aforesaid. Explanation 1: "Auction" means auction held under the auspices of the committee constituted by means of the State Government's notification No. MI. 168/867 72 dated 16th June, 1986 and as reconstituted from time to time. Explanation 2: "Broker" means of broker registered or recognised by the Committee constituted or reconstituted as aforesaid. Explanation 3:- "Orthodox tea" means traditional black leaf tea, other than what is known as green tea, manufactured in the conventional manner that has not passes through either Leggent or Crush, Toar and Curi (CTC) machine during manufacturing process. Sd/- H.S. Das Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department" 2. The impugned notification has been challenged on the following counts:- (1) Clause (3) of Section 9 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, for short, the Act, does not provide for levying of tax. It is for providing exemption only. (2) The impugned notification violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. (3) It can not be given retrospective effect. 3. The sales tax on sale of tea is leviable under the Act at the point of last sale within the State and as per Schedule-3 of the Act, the tax is at the rate of 8 paise in the rupee. Vide impugned notification, the sales tax has been made payable by the brokers on the purchase of tea except the Orthodox tea from the auction sale at Guwahati. The brokers on the other hand, have passed on this burden to the petitioners. The said brokers have been made parties in these writ petitions; but it may be mentioned that none of the brokers who were made to pay the tax by the impugned notification have come forward to challenge the same. 4. Dr A.K. Saraf, the learned counsel has submitted that if the petitioners/dealers in tea purchase tea directly from the tea gardens, they are required to pay sales tax at the rate of 8% only whereas in view of the impugned notification, they are required to pay 2% plus 8%, that is, total of 10% of tax and the same cannot have any basis, as because tea auction centre was established in order to promote tea and to facilitate sale of tea through the auction centres. The Act of 1993 became operative from 1.7.93 and under the old Act of 1947, the dealers were allowed to set off the tax paid to the brokers. The Act of 1993 became operative from 1.7.93 and under the old Act of 1947, the dealers were allowed to set off the tax paid to the brokers. However, the set off was not permitted under 1993 Act and it must be due to oversight or mistake only and subsequently in the year 1997, the said set off was permitted/reintroduced. 5. The case of the respondent State on the other hand, is that although the Government had initially decided to exempt auction sale of tea from tax to encourage the growth of the market, but subsequently a nominal rate of 1% of tax was imposed on brokers and thereafter it was raised to 2% to extra revenue. It is further stated that initially 2% tax which was to be charged by brokers from Buyers was to be set-off against Buyers tax liability arising on account of their subsequent sale of tea. However, after the enactment of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, considering the operational difficulties and other considerations, the State decided not to allow the said exemption. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent State has given the reasons as to the policy decision for not allowing the exemption/set off to the category of petitioners/dealers. The reasons stated by the respondent State are as follows:- (1) The 2% tax charged by brokers mingles with total selling price and as such the total selling price of brokers is the purchase price of buyers. (2) The price of which an ultimate consumer buys tea at market is several times higher than the auction selling price and actual consumer does not get any relief of this tax set off and the Government was not willing to give any relief to the middleman. It is further submitted that tea purchased by Buyers at the tea auction are not entirely sold in the State of Assam and these are meant for inter-State sale or export also. So far the inter-State sale is concerned, no tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act is leviable. The choice of buying tea from the tea gardens or from the auction market or through the brokers of the auction market is with the dealers and the same can not be a ground for quashing the impugned notification. 6. So far the inter-State sale is concerned, no tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act is leviable. The choice of buying tea from the tea gardens or from the auction market or through the brokers of the auction market is with the dealers and the same can not be a ground for quashing the impugned notification. 6. As stated above, the set off of 2% tax was permissible under the old Act but the same was dispensed with by the new Act. However, with effect from 1.8.1997, the provisions have been amended and the rate of tax on tea is now 2% at first point of sale and 6% at last point of sale. The amended provisions of 1.8.1997 are not under challenge in this case. 7. Section 9(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act reads as follows:- "(3) The State Government may by notification in Official Gazette make an exemption or reduction in rare in respect of any tax or interest payable under this Act on the sale or purchase of any class of goods specified therein- (i) at all or any specified point or points of sale in a series of sales by successive dealers; or (ii) by any specified class of persons in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover: Provided that any exemption or reduction may extend to the whole of the State or to any specified area or areas therein and be subject to such restriction and conditions as may be specified the notification: Provided further that validity of any notification issued under this sub-section shall not exceed a period of three years from the date of its issue." 8. As regards the challenge, that Section 9(3) does not empower the State Government to levy tax on the brokers. It is submitted that general rate of tax on sale of tea was 8% under the Act of 1993. Vide the impugned notification the said rate was reduced to 2% for sale of tea in particular stations, that is, auction market. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned notification was aimed at exemption/ reduction of tax which was permissible u/s 9(3) of the Act. 9. The tax was made payable by the brokers and the brokers of the auction committee, as (stated above, have not challenged the imposition/levy of tax on purchases made by them. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned notification was aimed at exemption/ reduction of tax which was permissible u/s 9(3) of the Act. 9. The tax was made payable by the brokers and the brokers of the auction committee, as (stated above, have not challenged the imposition/levy of tax on purchases made by them. The said tax was not charged from the present petitioners along with it became part of the price. The petitioners are aggrieved by the provisions for not setting off, which was available earlier. The State has given the reasons as to why the exemption was not provided. 10. It is no doubt true that fiscal transactions frown upon double taxation; but only when there is doubt. It is rule of construction and admittedly, it does not control the legislative power of enactment. In the instant case, we find that certain exemptions were available to the petitioners under the old Act; but under the Act of 1993, the said exemptions were not provided. The reasons for not providing the exemptions have also been stated above and hence, we find no basis to hold that the impugned notification violates the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. There is no dispute at the Bar that the Legislature has power and jurisdiction to levy tax or grant exemption. The exemptions also can be multiple. However, when the exemption which was available under the repealed Act, does not find place in the new Act, the provisions of the new Act does not become ultra-vires on that count. The State has power to decide whether any exemption is to be granted or not and in the present case, we find that the respondent State of Assam took a policy decision not to grant exemption/set off to the dealers. 12. In view of the above, we find no merit in these writ petitions and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.