S. ANANDA REDDY, J.

This batch of tax revision cases is filed by the dealers aggrieved by the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.

The petitioners in all these cases are the dealers and manufacturers of cotton hank yarn. During the relevant previous year the petitioners have effected inter-State sales on hank yarn. In respect of the turnover relating to the sale of hank yarn, the dealers claimed exemption and the assessing officer accepted the said claim and granted exemption. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, initiated revisional proceedings under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" or "the State Act"). According to him, the exemption granted by the assessing officer is not in accordance with law, as the exemption granted under the G.O., issued under section 9(1) of the State Act, is only conditional and not general and therefore the benefit of exemption is not available in respect of the inter-State sales in terms of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act"). The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, after issuing show cause notice and giving an opportunity of being heard, revised the assessments holding that the turnover which was exempted by the assessing officer was in fact liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent. since it is covered by "C" declaration forms. The said order was assailed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, unsuccessfully. Hence, the present tax revision cases before this Court.

The learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Natarajan, appearing for the dealers in T.R.C. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1994, contended that the exemption granted in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1067, dated September 19, 1985 issued under section 9(1) of the State Act is a general exemption with reference to the sales to all the registered dealers in the State, apart from the consumers specified therein. When once the exemption granted by the said G.O., issued under section 9(1) of the State Act, is a general exemption with reference to transactions within the State, the said general exemption would be equally applicable in respect of inter-State transactions that are effected in terms of section 8(2A) of the Central Act. Therefore, the turnover representing the sale of hank yarn on inter-State transactions are entitled for exemption.

Referring to the relevant provisions, the learned counsel contended that the notification issued by the State Government under section 9(1) of the Act is intended to the benefit of handloom sector as a whole. Therefore, the benefit has to be extended even with reference to the consumers outside the State. Adverting further to the provisions of section 9 of the State Act, it is contended that the said provisions do not contemplate the sale to the registered dealers for consumption, which is entitled for exemption. The learned counsel also specifically referred to the provisions of section 12(2)(a) and section 12(5) of the State Act and contended that hank yarn falls under the Third Schedule to the Act and with reference to the dealers carrying on business in all or any of the goods mentioned in that Schedule, have to get themselves registered irrespective of the quantum of the turnover. The Act does not contemplate any dealer to deal with the goods specified in Third Schedule without getting themselves registered under the Act. When once the Act does not contemplate any other category of dealers to deal with the goods specified in Third Schedule, the notification issued under section 9 of the State Act, providing exemption in respect of the sales to the registered dealers, would cover and encompass all the dealers in the State. Therefore, it is contended that when once the sale of hank yarn to all dealers, who are referred in the notification as a registered dealers, is exempted, the said exemption is of a general in nature and it does not depend upon any conditions or circu