RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

In this Batch of writ petitions the substantial question raised is about the validity of serial No. 7(b) in the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and in particular it is stated that the parenthesis included in the brackets therein, in juxta-position to the relevant constitutional provisions, is void, ultra vires and illegal. It is sufficient if the facts in one writ petition are noticed and the contentions of the counsel dealt with so as to answer the query posed. We shall therefore proceed to state the facts in W.P. No. 927 of 1967 which are illustrative of the dealings of all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions.

The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in hides and skins. The firm also sells tanned hides and skins processed from raw skins purchased by them locally and outside the State. Hides and skins, whether in raw or in tanned state, have been declared to be goods of special importance under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India envisages that any law of a State in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify. Section 15, while enumerating such condition ore restriction referred to in Article 286(3) of the Constitution, authorises the State to levy such tax provided it shall not exceed two per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage. In the present situation, however, it is three per cent. Following up the embargo imposed both under the Constitution and by the specific provisions referred to above under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in section 4 thereto, provides :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the tax under this Act shall be payable by a dealer on the sale or purchase inside the State of declared goods at the rite and only at the point specified against each in the Second Schedule on the turnover in such goods in each year, whatever be the quantum of turnover in that year." *

The Second Schedule to the local Act, dealing with declared goods, specifies the point at which sales tax is leviable on declared goods and the rate of levy. Dealing with hides and skins, it provides, under item 7(a) thereto, that raw hides and skins are taxable at the point of last purchase in the State at two per cent., and under item 7(b), dressed hides and skins (which were not subjected to tax under this Act as raw hides and skins) at the point of first sale in the State at one per cent. The rate has however been changed progressively to 3 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.

In the light of the above provisions enabling the State to levy sales tax on declared goods, the petitioner's case is that in following up the restrictions and conditions high-lighted by Article 286(3) of the Constitution, the Madras General Sales Tax Act, while imposing the levy on hides and skins in the manner stated above, has purported to ignore the intendment of such restrictions. The petitioner's case is that raw and tanned hides and skins ought to be treated as one single commodity and is liable to only a single point levy of tax. According to them, item 7 of the Second Schedule to the State Act has not concentrated on the policy of levying tax at a single point, but on the contrary fixed two points one by item 7(a) read with the proviso to item 7(b) on the said commodity which is subjected to tax in the raw state, that is, tanned from raw skins purchased within the State, and another item 7(b) of the said tanned commodity which is not subjected to tax in the raw state, that is, tanned from raw skins purchased from outside the State. The petitioner's case is, as it is imperative that hides and skins can be taxed only at a