Satyanarayana Raju, J.
1. This revision case arises out of an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal, T.A. No. 394 of 1957.
2. The petitioner is a dealer at Vijayawada. His main business during the year of assessment 1953-54 consisted in purchasing raw skins and hides at Vijayawada and exporting them to tanners at Madras.
3. Under Section 3(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, every dealer is liable to pay for each year a tax on his total.turnover for such year. Section 5' however, grants certain exemptions and reductions of tax in certain cases, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, including the conditions as to licence and licence fees. Under Section 5, Clause (vi), the sale of hides and skins, whether tanned or untanned, is liable to tax only at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed. Rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, prescribes that in the case of hides and skins the tax payable under Section 3(1) shall be levied in accordance with the provisions of that rule. Under Sub-rule (2) no tax shall be levied on the sale of untanned hides or skins by a licensed dealer in hides or skins except at the stage at which such hides or skins are sold to a tanner in the State or are sold for export outside the State. Under Rule 5(1) (e) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, every person who deals in hides and/or skins whether as a tanner or otherwise shall, if he desires to avail himself of the exemption provided in Sections 5 and 8 or of the concession of taxation only at a single point or of taxation at the rate specified in Section 5, submit an application in Form I for a licence in respect of each of his places of business to the authority specified in Sub-rule (2). If the dealer takes out the licence, he would be entitled to the concession in the matter of single point taxation provided by Section 5, Clause (vi), above set out.
4. The petitioner, it is common ground, obtained a licence for the year of assessment 1953-54 and the transactions included in his turnover before and up to 1st October, 1953, when the Andhra State was formed, received the concession of tax at a single point. But from 1st October, 1953, the transactions of sale by the petitioner to dealers in the Madras State were not extended this concession. It was argued by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the same contention is reiterated before us, that by reason of the petitioner being a licensed dealer he is entitled to exemption not only during the first half of the assessment year but also during the latter half of the year notwithstanding the separation of the State. This, according to him, follows from a proper construction of Section 53 of the Andhra State Act (XXX of 1953).
5. In order to appreciate the point raised in this respect, it is necessary to indicate the changes brought about by the Andhra State Act (XXX of (1953) which Was enacted with a view to provide for the formation of the State of Andhra and for matters connected therewith. As from the appointed day, i.e., 1st October, 1953, under Section 3 'there shall be formed a State of Andhra comprising the territories which immediately before that day were comprised in Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Kurnool, Anantapur, Cuddapah and Chittoor districts and in the Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug taluks of Bellary district in the State of Madras.' The Andhra State came into being on 1st October, 1953 and from that day the territories enumerated in Section 3 ceased to form part of the State of Madras. By reason of the consequential amendment made in the Constitution of India, the first Schedule was amended by inclusion of the new State of Andhra. Under Section 53 of the Andhra State Act, it is provided that the laws in force in the territories in the Andhra State prior to its constitution will continue to be in force even after and one of these Acts is the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939). Section 54 of the Act provides for the adaptation of the laws previously made and in exercise of the powers so conferred, the Government of Andhra made an Adaptation Order on 2nd November, 1953, whereby the word 'Andhra' was substituted for the word 'Madras' in the Madras Acts. Notwithstanding the formation of the new State, the Madras Act as adapted continued to be operative in the territories forming part of the new State. Section 53 declared that notwithstanding the emergence of the State of Andhra there shall not be deemed to be any change in the law in force. It provides firstly that there shall be no change in the law. Secondly, that section made a suitable provision for avoiding hiatus. The fact that the same set of laws continued to be operative both in the States of Madras and Andhra does not support the contention of the petitioner that the licence held by him would still entitle him to the concession in the matter of single point tax.
6. The short answer to the petitioner's contention is that he was not denied the privileges attached to the licence during its currency. These privileges still continue. They were only not operative beyond the limits,. of the State. Therefore it was the emergence of the new State of Andhra in and by reason of the enactment of the Andhra State Act by the Parliament that has resulted in this inconvenience to the petitioner and not by reason of any action taken by the Government of the State. That Parliament is entitled to carve out a new State or reorganize an existing State is beyond controversy. Such a power is vested in the Parliament by reason of Article 3 of the Constitution and in exercise of these powers the Parliament passed the Andhra State Act. Therefore there is no question of the Government, from whom the petitioner obtained the licence, denying him any of the privileges attached to that licence.
7. We are supported in this conclusion by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh  9 S.T.C. 298 at P. 344. In that case one of the contentions raised before the Supreme Court was that the levy of tax proposed to be made by the Andhra State on the sale of yarn by them to dealers in the State of Andhra is illegel, because under the Madras Act and the Rules made thereunder, where there are successive sales of yarn the tax can be imposed at only one point and as the Government of Madras already imposed a tax on the sale within that State, a second levy on the self-same goods by the State of Andhra was unauthorised and therefore the proceedings were incompetent. Their Lordships negatived this contention in the following passage :-
This contention is clearly untenable. When the Madras Act provides for a single levy on successive sales of yarn, it can have only application to sales in the State of Madras, as it would be incompetent to the Legislature of Madras to enact a law to operate in another State. But it is argued that Section 53 of the Andhra State Act, 1953, on its true interpretation enacts that though for political purposes Andhra is to be regarded as a separate State, for the enforcement of laws as they stood on that date it should be deemed to be a part of the State of Madras. We do not agree with this interpretation. In our opinion, Section 53 merely provides that the laws in existence in the territories which were constituted into the State of Andhra should continue to operate as before.
8. Having regard to the clear pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court we must hold that there is no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to raise certain subsidiary contentions which have a bearing on the facts. As in this revision case we find that these contentions were not raised before the Tribunal which is competent to entertain questions of fact and the petitioner having failed to do so, we do not think we are justified in entertaining these contentions on the merits involving determination of facts. This revision case therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250.