RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

In W.Ps. Nos. 2577 of 2580 of 1965, the petitioner seeks in the main for a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment orders made by the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 contends that as section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act assimilates all the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act in regard to single point taxation and other exemptions particularly in relation to declared goods and as the scheme of inter-State transaction is therefore made dependent upon local legislation and as the State law provides that such declared goods shall be assessed only at one particular point, no tax can therefore be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act on his last sale. According to the petitioner, he issued a lawyer's notice demanding the refund of the tax, which, according to him, was illegally levied and collected by virtue of the impugned orders referred to above. The petitioner would also contend that though the ratio in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons confined itself to a period prior to 1st October, 1958, yet the same result ought to follow even for a period posterior thereto. It may be noticed that no fresh material was placed by the petitioner in support of his claim as he was content to rely upon the affidavits filed in the main in W.Ps. Nos. 2465 to 2468 of 1965 for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which were disposed of by this court on 13th October, 1965, and the decision in which is now reported in Khader & Co. v. State of Madras No doubt, a belated attempt in December, 1968, has been made by the writ petitioner to permit a further affidavit to be filed. This also has been noticed by us. In the supplemental affidavit the petitioner adds that section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act does not mandatorily indicate that the Central sales tax must be retained under all circumstances and that the local tax only has to be refunded. In the alternative it is stated that if at all material times, the Central sales tax has to be retained and the local tax only has to be refunded, then such a provision offends articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India. The reason advanced is that invariably in the last inter-State sale the turnover is bound to be greater and therefore the burden is higher and hence it impedes free flow of inter-State trade and commerce. It is also urged that section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act is defeated by rule 23 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on G.O.Ms. No. 1467, dated 21st May, 1964, by which similar dealers are executively obtaining refund of Central sales tax on an ad hoc basis.The broad questions springing from the pleadings and the contentions of the parties in these proceedings are common.

It is not disputed that the goods in question are declared goods. The scheme of taxation adumbrated in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, having been assimilated for purposes of imposition of sales tax in case such goods are involved in subsequent inter-State sales, it is clear that the provisions of the State law necessarily have to be looked into the consider and adjudicate upon the fact whether sales tax is attracted on relative inter-State transactions. Though it was felt at one time that the phrase "in the same manner" in section 9(3) did not make applicable all the incidents of the local sales tax law to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act (vide Mariappa Nadar v. State of Madras yet it is now established by the dicta of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty an Sons that there is no reason why the Central Act made a departure in the manner of levy of tax on the specified goods which are taxed only at a single point under the State Act; if any such radical departure was intended, the Central Act would have expressly stated so. The Supreme Court thus explained the phrase "in the same manner" as meaning that there is an assimilation of both the procedural and substant