VEERASWAMI, C.J.

Petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying the High Court to issue writs of prohibition, (1) prohibiting the respondent from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the notice of the respondent, (a) dated 5th February, 1970, in Asst. No. 12548/69-70 (W.P. 860/70), (b) dated 5th February, 1970, in Asst. No. 12547/69-70 (W.P. 861/70) and (c) dated 2nd February, 1971, in M.G.S.T. No. 2205/69-70, dated 2nd February, 1971, in M.G.S.T. Asst. No. 2708/69-70 and dated 3rd February, 1971, in M.G.S.T. Asst. No. 2012/69-70 respectively issued under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1970 relating to the petitioner's business for the assessment year 1969-70 etc. Writ Petitions Nos. 585, 860, 861, 864, 3349 and 4149 of 1970 and 508, 577, 578, 605 to 609, 629, 694 to 697, 797, 833, 838, 884, 895 to 897, 902, 909, 934 to 936, 1015 and 1049 of 1971, decided on April 23, 1971. C. S. Chandrasekhara Sastry, K. Srinivasan, K. C. Rajappa, P. R. Ranganathan, S. Padmanabhan, M. M. Abdul Razack and S. Abdul Karim, for the petitioners. The Advocate-General assisted by K. Venkataswami, First Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent.

The order of the court was delivered by

VEERASWAMI, C.J.

The common question in these petitions turns on the scope of section 7-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which was introduced by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970. Just to show how the question arises, we refer to the facts in W.P. No. 864 of 1970. There, by a memorandum dated 5th March, 1970, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Leigh Bazaar and Gugai Division, Salem, called upon the petitioner to pay a certain sum by way of tax assessed under the section. The basis for the charge was stated to be :

"Admittedly you have purchased castor seeds through your own bought notes from registered dealers whose transactions are not verifiable. As per section 10, the burden of proof that any dealer or any of his transaction is not liable to tax under this Act shall lie on such dealer. Therefore the purchases effected by you have suffered tax already should be proved by you." *

The contention for the petitioner is that this approach to section 7-A is erroneous, because the circumstances contemplated by that provision did not include the possibility or impossibility of verifiability of the transactions with the dealers from whom the petitioner had purchased.

It seems to us that the contention of the petitioner as mentioned above is well founded. Section 7-A(1) reads :

"Levy of purchase tax. - Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, and either, -

(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or

(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or

(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover relating to the purchase aforesaid at the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, whatever be the quantum of such turnover in a year :

Provided that a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) purchasing goods (the sale of which is liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3) shall not be liable to pay tax under this sub-section, if his total turnover for a year is less than fifteen thousand rupees." *

We do not think that it is material to read sub-section (2) for purposes of disposal of these petitions. In order to attract the purchase tax under this section, the person who is taxed must be a dealer, and the purchases made by him should have been in the course of his business, and such purchases may be either from a registered dealer or from o