The judgment of the court was delivered by

SETH, J. - This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 26th June, 1973, and 13th December, 1973, passed by the Sales Tax Officer assessing the petitioner to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and thereafter refusing to rectify the same.

The petitioner-company manufactures toughened glasses and mirrors in its factories at Allahabad and Calcutta. It has a branch office at Delhi. In the normal course of business, it effected certain inter-State sales of toughened glasses manufactured by it at Allahabad. The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated 26th June, 1973, determined the turnover of such inter-State sales for the year 1970-71 and assessed the petitioner to sales tax accordingly. Subsequently, the petitioner, relying upon a notification dated 9th January, 1970, issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, declaring that the turnover in respect of mirrors and toughened glasses manufactured by the petitioner at Allahabad shall be exempt from payment of sales tax for a period of three years with effect from February, 1969, claimed that the turnover of sales of toughened glasses and mirrors, manufactured by it, being generally exempt from tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it was not liable to Central sales tax either, as provided in section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It accordingly moved an application under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act read along with the Central Sales Tax Act for rectification of the assessment order dated 26th June, 1973. The Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated 13th December, 1973, rejected the application for rectification on the ground that the turnover of sales of toughened glasses and mirrors was not generally exempt from payment of sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. As such, the petitioner could not derive any advantage from the provisions of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act and its turnover had been rightly assessed under that Act. Being aggrieved by the two orders mentioned above, the petitioner has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution and prays that they be quashed.

Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act runs thus :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), if under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of any goods by a dealer is exempt from tax generally or is subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than two per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), the tax payable under this Act on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of such goods shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law it is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or in relation to which the tax is levied at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods."

Accordingly, if under the sales tax law of the U.P. State, the turnover of sales of mirrors and toughened glasses manufactured in the petitioner's factory at Allahabad, by a dealer (in the instant case by the petitioner), is exempt from tax generally, the tax payable by it under the Central Sales Tax Act on such part of its turnover shall be nil. Normally, the sale of particular goods by a dealer would, under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, be considered to be exempt from tax generally if the turnover of sales of that particular goods by the dealer is in no circumstance liable to be taxed under that Act. However, the legislature added an explanation to section 8(2A) and provided that although under the State law, the sale of a particular goo