RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

In this batch of writ petitions, the main question arising for consideration is whether Terylene, Terene, Dacron, Nylon, Nylex etc., would come within the expression "artificial silk" which occurs as item 4 in the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and therefore exempt from sales tax. Main arguments were addressed in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, and as the point for consideration in all the writ petitions in this batch is the same, we intend considering the respective contentions of the parties as urged before us in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966. It is not in dispute that notices, which were similar to those issued in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, were issued to the other writ petitioners in this batch of petitions, and therefore we intend passing a common order considering the contentions of the respective counsel for either side in the main W.P. No. 2927 of 1966.

The petitioner in this case has made the assessing officer as the 1st respondent, the State of Madras as the 2nd respondent, the Union of India as the 3rd respondent, the Central Board of Revenue as the 4th respondent, and the Collector of Central Excise as the 5th respondent. The petitioner's case is that on or about September, 1966, he was served with notices by the 1st respondent calling upon him to furnish particulars of sales turnover in Terylene cloths for the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The notice recited that such particulars were required for purposes of revision of assessment for those years, as the turnover in Terylene cloths is taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The second notice is more telling in that it has included the reasons why the 1st respondent was issuing the said notice. In the second notice, the 1st respondent would have it that Terylene and Nylon fabrics are made from synthetic fabrics produced from chemicals and not from common natural bases, and therefore they do not come under any of the classes of goods specified in item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which are exempt from tax under the Act. As the normal conclusion to be deduced from the above notices issued by the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent as the assessing authority has already made up his mind to revise a closed assessment and impose a fresh impost on Terylene and other classes of goods on the foot that they are not exempt from taxation under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of prohibition interdicting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the action proposed by him in the two notices as above. The petitioner contends that the goods in question are artificial silk, classifiable as artificial silk, and have been deemed and understood to be so in the trade, by Government and even by experts, and that, therefore, the decision unilaterally taken by the 1st respondent as if the goods are not covered by the expression "artificial silk" is highly arbitrary. It is also contended that with reference to the various enactments like the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957

The 5th respondent, the Union of India, completely supports the petitioner. Its case is that man-made fibres like Nylon, Terylene, Terene, Dacron etc., are all considered as artificial silk and factually and technically the above products are textiles coming under the category of artificial silk. It categorically says that by virtue of the agreement between the State and the Central Government, the Centre is collecting the additional excise duty on these fabrics and distributing a portion of the same out of the Consolidated Funds to the State and that in respect of these fabrics the State cannot levy sales tax. It is on such pleadings the parties have addressed arguments. We should at the outset confess that the learned Advocate-General representing