F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. In these tax case revisions, as well as the writ petitions, the common questions of law that arises for consideration are as under:

"(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error of law in failing to see that Section 3

(4) had no operation since the situs of the export sales of the petitioners was the State of Tamilnadu ?

(2) Whether Section 3(4) has operation when the situs of the export sales determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Explanation (3) to Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is inside the State of Tamilnadu ?"

2. For the sake of convenience and to understand the scope of the controversy, we refer to the facts involved in T.C.No.39 of 2009.

3. The issue pertains to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The petitioners effected purchase of chemicals, consumables and packing materials by using Form-XVII declaration and availed concessional rate of tax at 3% as provided under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Act. Such materials were used for the manufacture of automobiles parts and industrial chains. The petitioners also exported a part of the manufactured goods through Seaport as well as Airport. Initially proceeding on the basis that such exports would also attract liability under Section 3(4) of the Act, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.4,31,832/- and at the time of assessment, they took the stand that since the export sale took place in the State of Tamilnadu, there could be no liability under Section 3(4) of the Act.

4. The said stand of the petitioners was not accepted by the Assessing Authority in his order dated 28.04.2006. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in A.P.No.121/2006. The Appellant Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 16.04.2007, confirmed the assessment of tax of Rs.4,31,832/-under Section 3(4) of the Act. The petitioners preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.296 of 2007. The petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 12.09.2008, insofar as the liability under Section 3(4) was concerned. It is as against the above orders, the petitioners have come forward with these petitions.

5. Assailing the orders impugned, Mr.Sriprakash and other learned counsel addressed arguments on the legal question as to whether such export made from this State would attract a levy of tax as prescribed under Section 3(4) of the Act.

6. We heard Messers A.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, K.J.Chandran, N.Sriparkash, N.Prasad, V.Sundareswaran, R.Senniappan and T.V.Lakshmanan on behalf of the Assessees and Mr.Haja Nasiruddin, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on behalf of the State.

7. Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioners in T.C.Nos.249 of 2006 and in some other cases, submitted that the petitioners purchased raw materials for manufacture of Tablets for sale locally, by way of interstate sale, as well as, branch transfer apart from exports. According to the learned senior counsel, such export sale which emanated from this State would also fall within the expression of sale as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act and consequently stood exempted from the purview of Section 3(4) of the Act. The learned senior counsel also contended that in the case of the petitioners represented by him, the Assessing Authoritys approach in adopting a formula for arriving at the liability was not justified when the books of accounts were accepted and the Act does not provide any scope for creating notional sales tax liability. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decision reported in (2002) 8 SCC 139 (Cemento Corporation Ltd Vs. Collector, Central Excise) and (2009) 22 VST 1 (SC) (State of Haryana and Others Vs. Liberty Enterprises).

8. Mr.N.Sriparkash, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in T.