1. The petitioners in these writ applications, challenge the constitutional validity of the Luxury Tax on Tobacco (Validation) Act, 1964, (Act IX of 1964). Actually, this is a later development in almost all of these writ applications. At the time they were filed, Act IX of 1964 referred to above was not in the statute book. The petitions originally contained only the prayer for a direction to refund licence fees collected from the petitioners for granting the various classes of licences as envisaged by the two enactments; the Travancore Tobacco Act (I of 1087) and the Cochin Tobacco Act (VII of 1084) and the Rules framed thereunder. This collection itself was once challenged in certain writ applications moved before this Court. The point then taken was that by virtue of S.13(2) of the Finance Act, 1950 (Act XXV of 1950), and the extension of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Travancore-Cochin State from 1950, the two enactments, the Travancore Tobacco Act (I of 1087) and the Cochin Tobacco Act (VII of 1084) stood repealed as those enactments represented law which is "corresponding law' within the meaning of that term in S.2 of the Finance Act, 1950. A Full