ORDER DIPAK MISRA, J. - By this writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the notification contained in annexure P-4 is violative of section 3(2) of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for brevity "the Act"). Quite apart from the above there are series of reliefs claimed in the writ petition. Before we advert to the factual matrix of the case we think it condign to refer to our earlier order which would make number of spectrums prismatically clear so that we would not have to adumbrate in detail the facts in issue. In these circumstances we are disposed to reproduce paragraphs 2 to 6 of the aforesaid order. "2. Mr. Nair urged with vehemence that during the pendency of this writ petition, assessment proceeding qua the petitioner-company was completed and, therefore, the company was compelled to file a first appeal before the first appellate authority which also did not yield any results, as a consequence of which the assessee-petitioner was constrained to travel to the Tribunal. It is put forth by him that during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, the authorities should have adhered to the principle of restraint by showing respect to the conception of propriety but the same has not been done and, therefore, the contempt proceeding was filed. It is note worthy to state here that the said proceeding for contempt has been dismissed being withdrawn. 3. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Nair that the hub of the matter is the constitutional validity of the annexure P4, a notification issued by the State Government relating to entry tax. We may clearly state here that the other various contentions which have been urged by Mr. 3. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Nair that the hub of the matter is the constitutional validity of the annexure P4, a notification issued by the State Government relating to entry tax. We may clearly state here that the other various contentions which have been urged by Mr. Nair are that there has been discrimination inasmuch as the department has proceeded against the petitioner singularly because the assail was to the notification in this writ petition and it has not proceeded against other companies which is discriminatory;that propriety commanded that the assessment proceeding should not have completed during the pendency of the litigation but the same was not kept in view;that the petitioner is entitled under law, if eventually the notification is declared to be intra vires, to be assessed under section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 but the petitioner has been proceeded under section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act which is not permissible in law;that the assessment officer as well as the appellate authority has not kept in view the real components and the essential factors relating to the tax of goods under the purview of the aforesaid statute and has imposed the tax on extraneous consideration;and that there has been violation of natural justice while completing the assessment. 4. Though the aforesaid submissions are quite attractive at the first flush yet we think it proper to make it clear that we will be addressing ourselves to the constitutional validity of the notification contained in annexure P4 and we are assured by the learned Senior Counsel that when he will be arguing the matter, he will confine his submission in that regard. 5. It has been proponed by Mr. Nair that when this Court is about to hear the matter at the earliest, the Tribunal should stay its hands otherwise it would become fait accompli. We have been apprised that the Tribunal has set out the matter for hearing on July 28, 2003. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that he would be in a position to complete the argument on August 14, 2003 and, therefore, the Tribunal may be directed to stay its hands as far as the petitioner is concerned. 6. Having heard Mr. Rajeev Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Kishore Shrivastava and Mr. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that he would be in a position to complete the argument on August 14, 2003 and, therefore, the Tribunal may be directed to stay its hands as far as the petitioner is concerned. 6. Having heard Mr. Rajeev Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Kishore Shrivastava and Mr. R. S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate-General, we are of the considered view that as we are inclined to address ourselves to the constitutional validity of annexure P4 which is the main question of controversy, the Tribunal should stay its hands in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner till August 30, 2003." On a perusal of the aforesaid order it is plain as day what really survives in this writ petition is challenge to the constitutional validity of Notification No. A-3-14-99-ST-V(17), dated March 31, 1999. It is pertinent to state here though the aforesaid notification has been assailed, Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought oral leave to assail the Notification No. A-3-14-99-ST-V(18) dated March 31, 1999. Mr. R. S. Jha, learned counsel for the State did not raise any technical objection in that regard. Hence, we proceed to deal with both the notifications. Assailing the notifications Mr. Nair raised following contentions : (i) That the notification No. (17) runs counter to section 3(1)(b) of the Act inasmuch as the notification has not taken note of the provision in entirety and has transgressed the basic essence of it by ushering in a sense of ambiguity because the dealer though carrying on business in respect of goods specified either mentioned in Schedule II or in Schedule III may be brought within the net of the said notification really being amenable for payment of entry tax under the statute. (ii) The notification No. (18) which has been issued under section 12 of the Act by providing the rate of tax under section 3(2) is also beyond the rule-making power of the delegated authority as such a power does not flow from section 9 of the Act as a consequence of which there is transgression of section 9 and when a notification runs counter to any statutory provision it cannot be given the stamp of approval and treated constitutionally valid. (iii) Quite apart from above compartment of proponement it is also put forth by Mr. (iii) Quite apart from above compartment of proponement it is also put forth by Mr. Nair that there is no harmony in the notifications if they are studiedly scrutinised in the bedrock of section 3(2)(b) read with the first proviso to section 2(a)(iii). Mr. R. S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State, in oppugnation has submitted that there is basic fallacy in the aforesaid submissions inasmuch as section 3 is the genus as far as entry tax is concerned but there are various species which have the sanction of law. Submission of Mr. Jha is that imposition of entry tax under section 3(1)(a)(b) falls in a different sphere and the tax levied under section 3(2)(a)(i) is in a different realm and there is no ambiguity in both. He has also put forth that if a person brings goods to the local area for consumption and sale therein, the goods which find mention in Schedule II, he is required to pay tax in different method and if he brings the goods for consumption and uses which find stipulation in Schedule III, the rate of tax is different as there is no sale therein. While so submitting Mr. Jha has further propounded that sub-section (2)(a)(i) of section-3 covers a different kind of person, namely, a person may be a dealer but might not be so in course of business qua the goods and, therefore, he would be levied tax under section 3(2)(a)(i) and the rate of tax would be under Notification No. (18) as specified under section 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the parties are really at issue in relation to constitutionality of the notification either on the ground of transgression of statutory power or defiant of article 14 of the Constitution of India in any manner whatsoever. We may hasten to add in the present case as the facts have been projected it can be disposed of by clarifying the provisions. It needs no special emphasis to state when the provisions are clarified they are in a different arena altogether than the constitutional validity of any provision or notification is debated upon. Submission of Mr. We may hasten to add in the present case as the facts have been projected it can be disposed of by clarifying the provisions. It needs no special emphasis to state when the provisions are clarified they are in a different arena altogether than the constitutional validity of any provision or notification is debated upon. Submission of Mr. Nair is that the petitioners are bringing the goods inside the local area in course of business and they are registered dealers and the goods which are produced inside for consumption or use and not for sale and, therefore, they cannot be covered under the Notification No. (17). As far as Notification No. (18) is concerned submission of the learned counsel is that as it pertains to the rate of tax at present the same has no applicability to the petitioner if the petitioner is taken away from the net or coverage of the Notification No. (17). To appreciate the aforesaid submissions in proper perspective we think it seemly to reproduce section 3(1)(a) and (b) : "3. Incidence of taxation. - (1) There shall be levied an entry tax - (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts but not for sale therein; and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods : Provided that no tax under this sub-section shall be levied :- (i) ....................... (ii) ...................... (iii) ..................... (ii) ...................... (iii) ..................... (iv) in respect of goods specified in Schedule II, other than local goods, purchased from a registered dealer on which entry tax is payable or paid by the selling registered dealer; (v) in respect of goods specified in Schedule II which, after entry into a local area, are sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India; (vi) in respect of goods specified in Schedule III imported from outside the State for consumption or use as raw materials or incidental goods or as packing materials or in the execution of works contract but which have been disposed of in any other manner; (vii) in respect of goods exempted from entry tax under section 10, and if tax on the entry of any goods specified in Schedule II or Schedule III effected during any period has been paid by a dealer and subsequent to such entry the goods are disposed of in the manner described in clause (v) or clause (vi) of this proviso, the dealer shall be entitled to a set off, of the tax already paid by him in respect of such goods and such set-off shall be adjusted towards the tax payable by him for the period during which the goods were so disposed of or for any subsequent period in such manner as may be prescribed; Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where a registered dealer in the course of his business, purchases goods from a person or a dealer other than a registered dealer who has effected entry of such goods into the local area prior to such purchase, the entry tax shall be paid by the dealer who has purchased such goods : Provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where a dealer liable to pay tax under the Vanijyik kar Adhiniyam, in the course of his business in a local area, purchases goods specified in Schedule III, other than goods which are local goods in relation to such local area, from another dealer of the same local area, for consumption or use as raw material or as incidental goods or as packing material or in the course of execution of works contract, the entry of such goods shall be deemed to have been effected into such local area by the dealer who has purchased such goods for the aforesaid purpose and entry tax shall be paid by such dealer. Explanation :- For the purpose of clause (b) - (a) ......... (b) in respect of packing material, 'sale' shall mean the sale of packing material as such and shall not include its sale along with the goods packed or contained therein, - ........" On a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is perceptible that sub-section (b) lays down a postulate that if goods which enter in course of business by a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III into each local area for consumption or use of such goods but not for sale therein he shall pay such tax. The terms used in the aforesaid pro-vision are "dealer of goods" "in course of business" and "consumption or use" and "goods fall under Schedule III". If these four factors are scrutinised in a cumulative manner indubitably a person who is going to be taxed can definitely claim release from encompassment of the Notification No. (17) and section 3(2). At this juncture we may refer with profit to section 3(2)(a). It reads as under : "3(2)(a) There shall be levied an entry tax on the entry into any local area for consumption, use or sale therein, - (i) of such goods specified in Schedule II or Schedule III, and (ii) by such person or class of person to whom the provisions of sub-section (1) do not apply, as may in either case, be notified by the State Government and thereupon such tax shall be paid by such person or class of persons : Provided that entry tax under this sub-section shall not be levied on the entry of such goods, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that such goods have already been subjected to entry tax or that the entry tax is liable to be paid by any other person or dealer under this Act." We are referring to the aforesaid section though what is relevant for the present purpose is section 3(2)(a)(i) but to understand the provision in proper perspective we have reproduced almost the whole of it. If the anatomy of the aforesaid section is understood in proper perspective it is plain as day that if the goods which have been brought inside for the purpose of consumption, use or sale and such goods specified in Schedule II or III they would be liable for entry tax under the provision of that sub-section. If the anatomy of the aforesaid section is understood in proper perspective it is plain as day that if the goods which have been brought inside for the purpose of consumption, use or sale and such goods specified in Schedule II or III they would be liable for entry tax under the provision of that sub-section. Submission of Mr. Jha is that if a person does not meet the requirements which find mention therein then the concept of paying tax under sub-section (2) would be attracted. To further clarify, if a person who seeks to be taxed under section 3(1)(b) he has to satisfy all the above mentioned four factors. Mr. Jha has submitted that the petitioner has been assessed under sub-section (2)(a)(i) of section 3 inasmuch as he has not brought goods in course of business. Mr. Nair, has controverted the aforesaid submission. The aforesaid controversy relates to facts and that can be gone into the proceeding before the Tribunal or other forums. Hence, we express no opinion whatsoever on this score. Before we part with the case we may hasten to add that we have only clarified the position and that would not be a remora when the validity of the aforesaid provision is challenged in future in any litigation as we have not adverted to the constitutional validity at all. We further clarify that we have not touched the merits of the any order of assessment passed by the assessing officer. We may also clarify that the clarificatory observations can be pressed into service before any other forum. At this juncture Mr. Nair has submitted that the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the proceeding strictly as per the clarification made by this Court. Appreciating the aforesaid submission we proceed to state that the Tribunal shall keep in view the observations made above and strictly follow the same while deciding the matter pending before it. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.