RAMASWAMI, J.

In T.C. No. 195 of 1968, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division, is the petitioner. The respondent is a dealer in paddy, rice and coconuts and doing business in Kumbakonam. For the assessment year 1963-64, the total and taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 6, 74, 269.23 and Rs. 3, 63, 100.08 as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3, 23, 837.13 and Rs. 2, 83, 000.73. In determining the taxable turnover, the assessing officer disallowed a claim of exemption to an extent of Rs. 12, 482 relating to sales of coconut. In addition to this, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 28, 064.86 as suppressions noticed as per slips recovered during an inspection and a sum of Rs. 30, 457.75 being 10 per cent of the taxable turnover towards probable omissions. The respondent-assessee disputed the addition and also the disallowance of the claim of exemption and filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tanjore, without success. The assessee again filed an appeal to the Tribunal. While the appeal was pending, he raised additional grounds contending that the entire sales turnover of coconut are exemptable as coconut is a fruit and exempted as per Government Notification No. 1764, Revenue, dated 5th April, 1960. The original contention regarding coconut was that it is an oil-seed and, therefore, liable for single point levy and that the transactions by him being second sales were not liable to tax. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Second Additional Bench), Madras, deleted the addition of Rs. 30, 457.59 on the ground that there is no proof of any sales suppression. Regarding the addition of Rs. 28, 064.86 towards actual suppression, the Tribunal found that the assessee was able to prove that a turnover of Rs. 3, 399.50 has been brought into accounts and, therefore, reduced the addition towards suppression to Rs. 24, 665.36. On the question whether coconut is a fresh fruit within the meaning of the Government notification dated 5th April, 1960, the Tribunal held that coconut is a fresh fruit and is exemptable. On the other question whether it is an oil-seed liable to single point levy, following the decision of this court in Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras held that it is not an oil-seed. The department has filed this tax case contending that coconut is not a fresh fruit within the meaning of the Government notification.T.C. No. 411 of 1969 is a tax revision case filed by the assessee - one A. Shanmugam Chetty. The assessee was a dealer in coconut carrying on business in Madras. For the year 1966-67 he returned a total turnover of Rs. 1, 95, 263.10. He however claimed that the entire turnover was not taxable as being sales of coconut. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer estimated the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1, 96, 348.07. The assessee having failed to persuade the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee as in the other case raised the contention that coconut is an oil-seed and that, in any case, it is a fresh fruit within the meaning of the Government notification. He also raised the contention that coconut is a vegetable and therefore exempt. This came before a different Tribunal. The Tribunal following their earlier decision in T.A. Nos. 2395 and 2396 of 1966 dated 18th January, 1969, rejected the contention of the assessee that coconut is either a fresh fruit or vegetable. Following the decision of this court in Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras it also rejected the contention that it is an oil-seed. The assessee has filed this tax case repeating the same contentions.

W.P. No. 1439 of 1970 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the order of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai, in Appeal No. 97 of 1970 dated 13th March, 1970, confirming the order of the assessment made by the Joint Commercial Tax Of