CHANDRA REDDY, J.

The interpretation of section 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and rules 6, 8, 9 and 11 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed thereunder is involved in these two appeals. Since the controversy in both the appeals is the same, they can be disposed of together. A.S. No. 809 of 1950 arises out of O.S. No. 58 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srikakulam, and A.S. No. 736 of 1950 out of O.S. No. 10 of 1949. These two suits were filed for refund of sales tax illegally and arbitrarily levied by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and paid by the plaintiffs under protest. The assessment year is 1946-47. To appreciate the conflicting contentions in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the salient facts of the cases.

The plaintiffs in both the suits are dealers in groundnut, groundnut products and other commodities. In addition, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 58 of 1948 is the proprietor of Sri Krishna Vizaya Groundnut Oil Mills, Pondur. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 58 of 1948 submitted a return showing a turnover of Rs. 11,36,317-6-9 while the plaintiffs in the other suit made a return for Rs. 20,79,821-2-8 on 29th April, 1947. A few days later, a provis