JUDGMENT

M.H. Beg, J. - These are seven connected writ petitions in each of which the petitioner is a partnership firm which is registered and licensed as a dealer under Section 3-E of the U.P. Sales' Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . Each petitioner is a dealer in food grains purchasing large quantities of pulses from Dal manufacturers every year. The manufacturers are alleged to have purchased these as 'unbroken seeds' and converted them into Dal, by putting them through a process which is described as 'manufacture', before selling it to petitioners. According to the petitioners, the process through which the unbroken seeds were put by the manufacturers did not involve a change in the chemical composition or the commercial character of the produce but put the pulses into a state fit for consumption by braking up the seeds and cleaning the raw product. The petitioners allege that they are, therefore, not first purchasers of Dal liable to pay purchase tax. Each petitioner has also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as of the exercise of the powers vested in the State Government in issuing the notifications against food grain dealers making them liable to Purchase Tax. The petitioners also allege that there is no procedure provided under the Act for the assessment of purchase tax.

2. M/s. Laxmi Dal Mills, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 817 of 1967, has questioned the assessment order dated 25-10-1966 relating to the assessment year 196566. M/s. Deep Chand Shyam Sunder, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 34 of 1967, has questioned the assessment order dated 29-11-1966 relating to the assessment year 1964-65. Ails. Laxmi Narain Vishnu Prasad, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 36 of 1967, has questioned the assessment order dated 29-11-1966 relating to the assessment year 1964-65. M/s. Trilok Chand Parsan Kumar, the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 455 of 1967, has questioned the assessment order dated 26-9-1966 relating to the assessment year 1965-66. M/s. Ram Narain Chandi Prasad, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 638 of 1967, has challenged the assessment order dated 20-91966 relating to the assessment year 1966-67.

3. M/s. Vijai Singh Chandan Mal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4673 of 1965, and Mls. Jauhari Mal Gaja Nand, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4674 of 1965, have assailed pending assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and have asked for writs of prohibition.

4. Four common questions of law which arise are: firstly, whether Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is constitutionally valid; secondly; whether the powers vested in the state Government under Section 3-D of the Act had been so exercised by various notifications issued under it as to discriminate against food grain dealers as compared with the dealers of other commodities; thirdly, whether there is any machinery under the Act for the assessment of purchase Tax, and fourthly, whether any of the purchases made by the petitioners were first purchases of a new commercial commodity 'manufactured' by the vendors of second purchases of a commercial commodity which retained its commercial character even though it was put through some process described as "manufacture" in the hands of the vendors.

5. The grounds upon which Section 3-D of the Act is alleged to be invalid are: that, Section 3-D of the Act amounts to excessive and unconstitutional delegation of essential legislative power to the State Government; that, Section 3-D of the Act does not provide any guiding principle for the State Government to select commodities for the exemption of purchase tax or for fixation of rates for such taxes so that rights conferred by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution are liable to be infringed by notifications issued by the State Government.

6. So far as the questions relating to the validity of Section 3-D of the Act are concerned, we find