GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise a common question and have therefore been heard together as desired by the learned counsel appearing in them.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. Nos. 245 and 1301 of 1964 is the same individual. He as well as the petitioner in W. P. No. 246 of 1964 are dealers in coconuts. They filed, as required by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tux Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), monthly returns that they are liable to be taxed only in respect of purchases of "dried" coconuts. They stated that the purchases made by them were not of dried coconuts hut of fresh or "water coconuts" which fell outside the purview of Section 6 read with Schedule 3 of the. Act. This claim was not accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer who consequently made provisional assessments on the petitioners on the footing that they were liable to be taxed on their purchases of all coconuts other than tender coconuts. These orders of assessment were later followed by demand notices in form B. 2. These notices warned the petitioners that in case they did not pay the tax assessed, it will be recovered from them as arrear of land revenue and further t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document