T.S. THAKUR, J.

These petitions, seeking a writ of certiorari, the petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of notification dated March 31, 2000, issued by the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, under section 71 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, "the Act") to the extent it has introduced gutka as one of the items in the First Schedule to the Act retrospectively with effect from April 1, 2000. The petitioners have also assailed the correctness of reassessment orders made by the assessing authority for the periods 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and the demands raised on the basis thereof.

The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of gutka, pan masala and chewing tobacco and are registered as dealers under the State and Central sales tax enactments. Assessments for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were reopened in terms of notices dated August 16, 2005, culminating in reassessment orders under the State Act as also the Central Act and raising of consequent demands for payment of taxes under the two enactments. Aggrieved, the petitioners have assailed the said orders of reassessment apart from challenging the vires of notification dated March 31, 2000, whereby pan masala and gutka were included as goods chargeable to tax under section 4(1)(a) of the Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Gaur made a two-fold submission in support of the challenge mounted in the petition. Firstly, it was contended on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kothari Products Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2000] 119 STC 553; (2000) 9 SCC 263 that since gutka and tobacco are covered under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the same were exempt from payment of any sales tax. Secondly, it was argued that additional excise duty payable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 being in lieu of sales tax, the levy of sales tax by the inclusion of gutka in the First Schedule to the Act was unconstitutional inasmuch as the same was contrary to the spirit underlying the Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000 apart from exposing the petitioner to double taxation which was legally impermissible.

Mr. Misra, counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that challenge to the impugned notification inserting pan masala and gutka as entry No. 46 in the First Schedule to the Act had been examined and repelled by a division Bench of this Court in Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India. [W.P. (C). No. 11251 of 2004], disposed of on November 5, 2004. ([2006] 144 STC 529.) He urged that a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction having upheld the notification, this Court was bound by the said decision, in the light whereof the first limb of the petitioner's challenge did not really arise for consideration. In so far as the alternative submission was concerned, it was argued by Mr. Misra that neither the Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000 nor the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 created any embargo for the competent State Legislature to levy a tax on the sale of even such goods as were otherwise covered by the provisions of earlier mentioned Act. He submitted that the source of power to levy additional excise duty was distinctly different from that under which the State Legislatures were competent to levy tax on the sale of goods. The Act, argued the learned counsel, gave to the Lt. Governor the power to grant or withdraw exemption by a suitable insertion or deletion of any entry from the Schedule to the Act. Inasmuch as the competent authority had withdrawn the exemption earlier enjoyed by gutka, by including the same in the First Schedule to the Act, it committed no constitutional impropriety leave alone any illegality to warrant interference by a writ court.

In Shanti Fragrances' case [2006] 144 STC 529, this C