SRINIVASAN, J.

In these writ petitions seeking the issue of appropriate writs, the validity of certain assessments to sales tax made by the Sales Tax Authorities and the steps taken by them to revise assessments already made are brought into question. The case is somewhat out of the ordinary and to start with the following facts may be stated. The petitioner is a film producer, being the sole proprietor of Messrs A.V.M. Productions. In or about 1962, the petitioner obtained the copyright of a story in Hindi entitled "Pooja Ke Phool" and on the basis of that story, he produced a cinematograph film. In 1964, a Hindi version of a popular Tamil picture was also produced. The petitioner entered into an agreement with Messrs A.V.M. Limited, whereunder the petitioner leased to the latter entity the right to exploit the cinematograph film "Pooja Ke Phool" for a period of 49 years on certain terms, which will be referred to in detail later. In respect of the second film, a similar agreement of lease was entered into in August, 1963, with Messrs Murugan Brothers and this lease comprised 1/20th of the rights of the petitioner. Later by another agreement, a lease of 10/20ths of the rights in that film for a period of 49 years, and a further agreement covering the balance of 9/20ths of the rights, were granted to Messrs A.V.M.Limited. In respect of the agreement for the first film, the petitioner received over Rs. 25 lakhs in 1964, and with regard to the second film, an aggregate of Rs. 19 lakhs and odd was received by the petitioner in 1965. For the assessment year 1964-65, the petitioner submitted his return which did not include the above sums. The assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, however decided to include in the assessable turnover the two sums mentioned above, treating the sums as representing the turnover of sales a films liable to a single point tax at 10 per cent. under the First Schedule to the Madras General Tax Act (1 of 1959). The contention of the petitioner broadly stated is that these are not sales of any goods but represented only realisations of the rights to exploit the films conferred upon him by the appropriate statute, viz., the Copyright Act. It is claimed that such rights in the films are not corporeal or tangible rights, nor are the film goods which are the subject-matter of any sale, and that there was no transfer of property in these films. The view taken by the assessing authority that in effect what was contemplated was the sale of the films is attacked as wholly erroneous and unjustified. It was only the right of exploitation of the film, which, having regard to the nature of the industry, is the only method by which a producer can reap the result of his activities, that was the subject-matter of the lease agreement, and the petitioner contends that the transactions fall wholly outside the purview of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

A second point has been taken that in any event the levy of tax at 10 per cent. under the First Schedule to the Act 1 of 1959 is illegal. The First Schedule provides for a single point levy at 10 per cent. on certain specified goods (higher than the normal rate of tax on the turnover of sales or purchases of general goods); the petitioner claims to have paid tax at that rate at the time of the purchase of the raw films and it is said that even if the proceed film is regarded as the subject-matter of the sale, it cannot be subjected to a tax over again under the First Schedule to the Act.A third point relates to the levy of penalty. The assessing authority took the view that by reason of the failure of the petitioner to disclose in his returns these two sums of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 19 lakhs as assessable turnovers, the penal provision of section 12(3) of the Act is attracted, and accordingly levied a penalty of Rs. 6, 66, 251, computed at one and a half times the quantum of tax on the amount not so disclosed. It is claimed by the petitioner that he