SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

This revision case arises out of an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal, T.A. No. 394 of 1957.

The petitioner is a dealer at Vijayawada. His main business during the year of assessment 1953-54 consisted in purchasing raw skins and hides at Vijayawada and exporting them to tanners at Madras.

Under section 3(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, every dealer is liable to pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year. Section 5, however, grants certain exemptions and reductions of tax in certain cases, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, including the conditions as to licence and licence fees. Under section 5, clause (vi), the sale of hides and skins, whether tanned or untanned, is liable to tax only at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed. Rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, prescribes that in the case of hides and skins the tax payable under section 3(1) shall be levied in accordance with the provisions of that rule. Under sub-rule (2) no tax shall be levied on the sale of untanned hides or skins by a licensed dealer in hides or skins except at the stage at which such hides or skins are sold to a tanner in the State or are sold for export outside the State. Under rule 5(1)(e) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, every person who deals in hides and/or skins whether as a tanner or otherwise shall, if he desires to avail himself of the exemption provided in sections 5 and 8 or of the concession of taxation only at a single point or of taxation at the rate specified in section 5, submit an application in Form I for a licence in respect of each of his places of business to the authority specified in sub-rule (2). If the dealer takes out the licence, he would be entitled to the concession in the matter of single point taxation provided by section 5, clause (vi), above set out.

The petitioner, it is common ground, obtained a licence for the year of assessment 1953-54 and the transactions included in his turnover before and up to 1st October, 1953, when the Andhra State was formed, received the concession of tax at a single point. But from 1st October, 1953, the transactions of sale by the petitioner to dealers in Madras State were not extended this concession. It was argued by the petitioner before the Tribunal, and the same contention is reiterated before us, that by reason of the petitioner being a licensed dealer he is entitled to exemption not only during the first half of the assessment year but also during the latter half of the year notwithstanding the separation of the State. This, according to him, follows from a proper construction of section 53 of the Andhra State Act (XXX of 1953).

In order to appreciate the point raised in this respect, it is necessary to indicate the changes brought about by the Andhra State Act (XXX of 1953) which was enacted with a view to provide for the formation of the State of Andhra and for matters connected therewith. As from the appointed day, i.e., 1st October 1953, under section 3 "there shall be formed a State of Andhra comprising the territories which immediately before that day were comprised in Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddapah and Chittoor districts and in the Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug taluks of Bellary district in the State of Madras." The Andhra State came into being on 1st October, 1953, and from that day the territories enumerated in section 3 ceased to form part of the State of Madras. By reason of the consequential amendment made in the Constitution of India, the first Schedule was amended by inclusion of the new State of Andhra. Under section 53 of the Andhra State Act, it is provided that the laws in force in the territories in the Andhra State prior to its constitution will continue to b