ANANTANARAYANA AYYAR, J.

Muhammad Abdul Khader filed W.P. No. 195 of 1962 praying for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order directing the two respondents to forbear and desist from further proceedings to assess him to sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58 in pursuance of a notice dated 15th February, 1962, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad III, who is the second respondent. The first respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh. The same petitioner filed a similar writ petition, W.P. No. 1110 of 1961 regarding the assessment year 1961-62 and W.P. No. 312 of 1963 regarding the assessment year 1958-59. In all the three writ petitions, there are the same two respondents and the same points are involved.

Shafeeq Shameem & Co., skin merchants of Vijayanagaram, filed W.P. No. 929 of 1961 praying for a writ of certiorari and prohibition or any other appropriate writ or direction, for quashing the order of assessment No. 6094/59-60 dated 30th December, 1960, which had been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, and for a direction to the respondents to desist from taking further proceedings in pursuance of that order of assessment. In that writ petition, there are three respondents. The first respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh, as in the other three writs. The second respondent is the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. The third respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada. The third Government Pleader, Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, representing the respondents in all the writ petitions, contested those petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together by common consent, as they involve common questions of law. The questions concerned in W.P. Nos. 1110 of 1961, 195 of 1962 and 312 of 1963 are identical, in addition to their being filed by the same person. For convenience, those writs are referred to as the writs of M. A. Khader.

The petitioner, M. A. Khader, is a skin merchant with his head office at Dindigul in Madras State. He has a purchasing branch at Hyderabad for purchasing raw skin in the State of Andhra Pradesh and delivering them in Madras State. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner proposing to assess the petitioner's purchasing branch on the turnover of raw skins purchased by that branch under the directions of the head office, after rejecting the objection which had been raised by the petitioner to the proposed assessment.

The contentions of the petitioner, M. A. Khader, in his various writ petitions are as follows :-

(1) The sale is an inter-State sale and, therefore, the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot levy sales tax.

(2) Tax cannot be lawfully levied on raw skin as it is not an article fit for consumption.

(3) Tax can be levied only at the point of purchase and cannot be levied on the writ petitioner, M. A. Khader, and the purchase was in Madras State and not in Andhra Pradesh State.

Shafeeq Shameem & Co. were assessed to sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, on the basis that that company was only a purchasing agent and, in that capacity purchased raw hides and skins and sent them to A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. of Madras for whom the former company was purchasing agent. The contention raised and argued before us in W.P. No. 929 of 1961 are Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned above.

Contention No. 2. - Beyond doubt or dispute, the raw hides and skins originated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and were sent as such to Madras State without any alteration or processing within Andhra Pradesh State, for being tanned and converted into tanned leather in Madras. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, contends that raw hides and skins are unfit for consumption. It is true that for a person who requires tanned leather or finished leather goods and can consume only such articles, raw hides and skins are not articles fit for consumption. But, for the tanner who wants to