JUDGMENT Honble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is a bunch of ten writ petitions involving common questions of law. These ten writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of, as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers and are recognition certificate holders under Section 4B of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners of writ petition Nos. 419 of 2007, 1390 of 2007 and 1169 of 2008 are manufacturing menthol from mentha oil. Rest of the petitioners are rice millers and purchases paddy for the purposes of manufacturing rice out of it. 3. Except writ petition No. 1390 of 2007, all the nine writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the authority concerned on various dates relating to different assessment years ranging 2000-01 to 2005-06 under Section 21(2) of the Act granting permission to reopen the assessment on the basis of a judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Monga Rice Mill etc. v. State of Haryana and another, 2004 NTN (Vol. 24) 545 : 2004 UPTC 782. 4. The arguments were advanced with reference to the facts of writ petition No. 419 of 2007, therefore, the facts of the said writ petition may be noticed. 5. Regular assessment for the assessment year 2000-01 was completed under Rule 41(5)/Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the assessment proceedings, the claim of the dealer that it purchased mentha oil for the purposes of manufacturing menthol and the purchases of mentha oil were exempted totally under the notification dated 12-2-1999 was accepted. Besides the export sale of menthol, the dealer also claimed exemption from trade tax on the turnover of 6,000 Kgs of menthol which was sold to the exporter against form H. In other words, the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of purchase tax on the total purchase relating to the mentha oil being a recognition certificate holder under Section 4B of the Act. It sold the manufactured good namely ‘menthol’ in the course of export under Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In respect of sale to exporter, form H was filed and on the basis of the said form H, corresponding purchases of mentha oil were granted total exemption from the purchase tax. It sold the manufactured good namely ‘menthol’ in the course of export under Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In respect of sale to exporter, form H was filed and on the basis of the said form H, corresponding purchases of mentha oil were granted total exemption from the purchase tax. On March 9,2007, the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Moradabad Zone, Moradabad issued a notice under Section 21(2) of the Act requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the exemption allowed on menthol sold by the petitioner against form H, in the original assessment proceedings, may not be withdrawn. A reply to the said show cause notice was submitted. The Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Moradabad Zone, Moradabad after consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 26-3-2007, granted permission to reopen the assessment order relating to the assessment year 2000-01 (U.P.). The basis of granting the said permission is the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra). Questioning the legality and validity of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. In the present petitions the controversy is confined to turnover of manufactured goods ‘menthol’ or as the case may be, ‘rice’ sold to exporter through form “H”. 7. In the counter-affidavit, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was claiming benefit of purchase tax on the purchases of mentha oil as per Notification No. 289 dated 12-2-1999 and the Circular dated 6-4-2004 issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax. In the case of M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra), the Apex Court has held that a conjoint reading of Sections 5(1), 5(3) and 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act makes it clear that the sales for export are not entitled for the benefit of Section 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Further reliance has been placed on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Iron Corporation and another v. Commercial Tax Officer and others, 1993 UPTC 1312. Further reliance has been placed on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Iron Corporation and another v. Commercial Tax Officer and others, 1993 UPTC 1312. The initiation of the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act has been sought to be justified on the ground that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra), the petitioner is not entitled for exemption of purchase tax on the purchases of mentha oil, if it sells the manufactured goods to the exporter. It has been further stated that the expression ‘export out of India’ has not been defined under U.P. Trade Tax Act, therefore, the meaning as assigned to it under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act shall respectively apply. Further it has been stated that the circular of the Commissioner Trade Tax is not binding if it is against provisions of law as has been held by the Apex Court in Bengal Iron Corporation and another (supra). In the rejoinder affidavit, the contents of the writ petition have been reiterated. 8. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner fulfills all the conditions of the notification dated 12-2-1999. Elaborating the arguments, he submits that the first condition provided in the notification which reads “the above facility will be available only when the manufactured goods is exported out of India” does not mean that it is the manufacturer who has to export the manufactured goods out of India. If the manufactured goods is exported out of India, the said condition stands satisfied. 10. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the Apex Court in the case of M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra) has interpreted Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and has held in clear terms that the nature of the transaction herein (sale to exporter by a manufacturer holding recognition certificate) does not amount to export sale and is also not covered under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act covers the last sale or purchase preceding direct export which is deemed to be in the course of export. The underlying rationale of Section 5(3) is that such penultimate sale or purchase must occasion in order to constitute a sale or purchase in the course of export. Section 5(3) does not cover the penultimate transaction which occasions sale in the local market nor does it cover sale for export. 11. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The facts are not much in dispute. Each petitioner is a manufacturer and holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act. The said certificate has been granted on the fulfillment of certain conditions. It is also not in dispute that each petitioner has purchased the raw materials for manufacturing menthol or rice, as the case may be, without paying any tax on such purchases. A portion of the goods manufactured has been sold to the exporter against form H and exemption from tax was claimed and allowed by the assessing authority. On these facts, the question which falls for determination is whether a manufacturer who is a recognition certificate holder having purchased the raw materials without paying tax or as the case may be, at the concessional rate of tax, and sold the goods to an exporter against form H, has complied with the conditions of Section 4-B and the notification issued thereunder in respect of the purchases of such raw materials granting total exemption or the concessional rate of tax. 13. At the outset, it would advantageous to have a clear picture of Section 4-B of the Act and the relevant notification issued thereunder. 14. Heading of the said section gives sufficient indication that the Legislature by way of Section 4-B have provided special relief to certain manufacturers. It provides special relief to the manufacturer of notified goods on concessional rate of tax or exemption from tax on purchases of raw materials and packing materials etc. for use in the manufacture of notified goods. 14. Heading of the said section gives sufficient indication that the Legislature by way of Section 4-B have provided special relief to certain manufacturers. It provides special relief to the manufacturer of notified goods on concessional rate of tax or exemption from tax on purchases of raw materials and packing materials etc. for use in the manufacture of notified goods. The said section gives an overriding effect on other sections namely, 3, 3-A , 3-AAAA and 3-D. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no dispute that the recognition certificates were rightly granted to the petitioners for the manufacture of menthol/rice which are notified goods and each of them were entitled to purchase raw materials i.e. mentha oil or paddy without paying tax thereon as per terms of Section 4-B. Sub-section (2) of Section 4-B, excluding the Explanation part, which is relevant for our purposes, is reproduced below : “(2) Where a dealer requires any goods, referred to in sub-section (1) for use in the manufacture by him, in the State of any notified goods, or in the packing of such notified goods manufactured or processed by him, and such notified goods are intended to be sold by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, he may apply to the assessing authority in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed, for the grant of a recognition certificate in respect thereof, and if the applicant satisfies such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed, the assessing authority shall grant to him in respect of such goods a recognition certificate in such form and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. A plain and simple reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-B of the Act, quoted above, clearly shows that the notified goods, as the case here, are required to be sold by such dealer (1) in the State or (2) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or (3) in the course of export out of India. It necessarily follows that a recognition certificate holder has to sell the notified goods i.e. menthol/rice, as the case may be, either in the State of U.P. or in inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India. It necessarily follows that a recognition certificate holder has to sell the notified goods i.e. menthol/rice, as the case may be, either in the State of U.P. or in inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India. Obviously, it does not cover a situation where a dealer has sold the notified goods (as the case here) to an exporter. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the notification dated 12-2-1999, issued under Section 4-B of the Act, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of said notification as it fulfills the conditions of the notification. 17. The controversy centres round the fulfillment of condition No. 1 which reads as follows : “(i) The above facility will be available only when the manufactured goods is exported out of India” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indisputably the goods having been exported out of India which is evident from form H and there being no dispute regarding fulfillment of the remaining conditions, the turnover of the petitioner is liable to be exempted under the said notification. Reference was also made to sub-section (7) of Section 4-B of the Act which provides that for determining whether a sale or purchase is in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, within the State, or in the course of export out of India, the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act shall respectively apply. 19. Indisputably, the above notification, being notification No. 289 dated 12-2-1999, which falls for consideration before this Court, was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4-B of the Act. The said notification is in the nature of subordinate piece of legislation as it has been issued by the executive and not by the State Legislature. The notification in the case of any ambiguity will have to be read and understood in the light of the contents of Section 4-B of the Act. What meaning should be assigned to the words “exported out of India” can be gathered from the language employed in Section 4B of the Act. Its sub-section (2), already reproduced above, in no uncertain terms provides that the notified goods is to be sold by the dealer locally or in inter-State sale or in the course of export out of India. Its sub-section (2), already reproduced above, in no uncertain terms provides that the notified goods is to be sold by the dealer locally or in inter-State sale or in the course of export out of India. The words “in the course of export out of India” have also been used in Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A conjoint reading of Section 4-B(7) and of 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act leads to the conclusion that the words “in the course of export out of India” as used in Section 4-B(2) of the Act will have the same meaning as has been assigned to them in Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 20. Another principle which should be kept in mind is that a notification has to be read and understood in conformity with Section 4-B of the Act. 21. It is apt here to notice the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra) around which the controversy revolves. The Apex Court has stated that there are two ends in every transaction, namely sale end and purchase end. Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act lays down principles for determining when a sale or purchase occasions ‘export’. To constitute a purchase exempt from State purchase tax, the purchase must occasion export. The question whether the purchase of paddy by the manufacture who manufactures rice from it and sells the rice to the exporter is a purchase which occasions sale. There are three categories of sales namely local sale, inter State sale and export sale. Section 5(1) covers direct export whereas Section 5(3) covers last sale or purchase preceding direct export which is deemed to be in the course of export. In the case of rice miller, like here, it has been held that it is a sale for export and not a sale which occasions export. Such transaction is not covered under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 5(3) does not cover the penultimate transaction which occasions a sale in local market nor does it cover a sale for export. Relevant portion of paragraph-9 of the report is reproduced below : “9. At the outset,we state that none of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties deal with the points which arises for determination in these civil appeals. Relevant portion of paragraph-9 of the report is reproduced below : “9. At the outset,we state that none of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties deal with the points which arises for determination in these civil appeals. As stated above, there are two ends in every transaction, namely, the sale end the purchase end. Section 5 of the 1956 Act lays down principles for determining when a sale or purchase occasions export. It inter alia defines the constitutional inhibition of Article 286(1)(b), namely, that no law of a State shall impose tax on sale or purchase which occasions export. To constitute a purchase exempt from State purchase tax, the purchase must occasion export. The question which we have to decide in these civil appeals is: whether purchase of paddy by the appellant (miller), who procures rice from it and sells the rice to the exporter is purchase which occasions export or is it a purchase for export? Section 5(1) of 1956 Act exempts export sales. There are three categories of sales, namely, local sale, inter-State sale and export sale. Section 5(1), therefore, covers direct export whereas Section 5(3) covers last sale or purchase preceding direct export which is deemed to be in the course of export. The last sale or purchase preceding the direct export is deemed to be in the course of export as the two are so closely connected that breach of one may result in breach of composite contract. It is for this reason that Section 5(3) inter alia requires such sale or purchase transactions being entered into after and in compliance with the export order being placed by the foreign buyer. The underlying rationale of Section 5(3) is that such penultimate sale or purchase must occasion export in order to constitute sale or purchase in the course of export. Section 5(3) does not cover the penultimate transaction which occasions sale in the local market, nor does it cover sale for export. In the present case, appellant is a miller within the State it buys paddy and procures rice therefrom within the State and sells it to the exporter within the State and as such it is a local sale which does not fall under Section 5(3). It is a sale for export and not a sale which occasions export. There is one more way of looking at the question in hand. It is a sale for export and not a sale which occasions export. There is one more way of looking at the question in hand. Under Section 15(a) of 1956 Act, as it stood at the material time, the State could levy tax either at the time of the transaction in case of declared goods. Consequently, under Section 6 and 17 read with Schedule-D of 1973 Act, we have single point levy of tax and not tax at multiple points. It is the last purchase of paddy which is made taxable under 1973 Act. The single point levy envisages tax at either ends of the same transaction provided that the identity of the goods remains unchanged. It is a tax on one single commodity. Section 15(a) inter alia states that the tax payable under the state law shall not be levied at more than one stage. The word ‘stage’ in Section 15(a) refers to stages of successive sales and purchases and not to stages, which raw material undergoes, resulting in the manufacture of a different commercial commodity. The reason is not far to see. Under the the 1973 Act, rice and paddy are two different commodities. They are taxable at different rates................” 22. In view of the above discussions, in the assessment proceedings, the exemption on the basis of form H was wrongly granted by the assessing authority to the petitioner as the same was not a transaction in the course of export but was a local sale to an exporter. 23. A feeble attempt was made by the learned petitioner’s counsel to distinguish the decision given by the Apex Court in M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra) with regard to its applicability to the facts of the present case. He urged that the decision given in the case of M/s. Monga Rice Mill (supra) is distinguishable in as much as the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act were under consideration wherein no similar notification, as issued herein, being notification No. 289 dated 12-2-1999, was involved. The distinction pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a distinction for the sake of distinction and carry no force. 24. At the end the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred following cases for the proposition that the circular interpreting notification is binding on the authorities : (1) Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. M/s Indra Industries, 2000 UPTC 472. 24. At the end the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred following cases for the proposition that the circular interpreting notification is binding on the authorities : (1) Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. M/s Indra Industries, 2000 UPTC 472. (2) M/s Eskay Remedies v. State of U.P., 2003 UPTC 254. 25. The said submission, on the facts of the present case, does not hold good for the simple reason that the circular dated 6-2-2004 issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is anterior in point of time to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Monga Rice Mill (supra). The said judgment is dated 13-4-2004, being subsequent to the circular, will have precedence over the circular. The Constitution of India provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all. This being so, even if there is a conflict in between a circular and law as declared by the Apex Court, undoubtedly the law declared by the Apex Court will prevail over it. 26. No other point was pressed. 27. We find no merit in the writ petition. 28. So far writ petition No. 1390 of 2007 is concerned, it has been filed against a show cause notice issued for the assessment year 2005-06 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why form H may not be rejected and turnover be taxed accordingly. The said writ petition stands even on a weaker footing. 29. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in any of the writ petitions. All the writ petitions are devoid of substance and are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each, payable to the respondents. The said cost shall be deposited within a period of one month. ————