V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The petitioners are dealers in cotton, cotton seeds, etc., with head office at Madurai and branches in various other places in this State. For the assessment year 1959-60, they reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 11,92,394.27 under the Central Sales Tax Act. On a check of the accounts, the assessing officer considered that a turnover of Rs. 7,45,140.97 relating to the sale of cotton which has not been included in the return is also liable to be assessed as a sale falling under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. After hearing the objections and on a consideration of the evidence available, the assessing officer held that that amount represented inter-State sales of cotton liable to be assessed at one per cent under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.
2. In this revision, the first question that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the transactions representing the disputed turnover were not inter-State sales and that they were local sales liable to be taxed at the last purchase within the State. The learned counsel also contended that cotton in this case was sold to one Rajendra Mills at Salem and they have been assessed also under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The transaction, as seen from the order of the Tribunal, was effected in the following manner: The petitioners entered into contracts with up-country sellers for purchase of cotton. Ninety per cent of the value of the goods was payable against railway receipt. The up-country sellers sent the railway receipt and the petitioners either directly or through their bank paid the money and received the railway receipt. The petitioners having agreed to sell the goods to Rajendra Mills delivered the railway receipt to the mills and received payments from them. These facts clearly establish, in our opinion, that the movement of goods was in pursuance of the contract of purchase by the petitioners with the out-of-State seller and that the sale in favour of Rajendra Mills was effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods when the goods were on their movement from one State to another and that, therefore, they are clearly inter-State sales falling under Section 3(b) of the Act.
3. It was next contended by the learned counsel that since the purchaser, Rajendra Mills, had been assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and had paid their tax, the petitioners are not liable to be assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel contended that cotton being declared goods falling under Section 14(ii) cannot be subjected to tax more than once under Section 15 and that therefore the assessment in this case is not sustainable. We are wholly at a loss to understand this argument. What is prohibited under Section 15 is levy of tax under a State law after it has suffered tax once. The levy under the Central Sales Tax Act after it has suffered local tax is not prohibited under Section 15. Further in this case there is only one transaction which could have been taxed only under the Central Sales Tax Act. It might be, if Rajendra Mills apply for a tax-refund on the ground that the transaction was inter-State sale and not a local sale in respect of which they could be held liable for payment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the position may be different, but that question does not arise for consideration. A mistaken or wrong assessment as a local sale would not relieve the transaction of inter-State sale from liabilities to Central sales tax. The decision in Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras  21 S.T.C. 195 referred to by the learned counsel dealt with two transactions and the liability of the first and the second transactions. As we have said already, there is only one transaction in this case which was liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act in the hands of the petitioners. The decision in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Trivandrum Co-operative Distributive Society Ltd.  14 S.T.C. 16 also has no relevance to the point under consideration. The argument that a transaction could be assessed either under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act and not under both also does not arise in this case, because, if the transaction was legally liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act it was not liable to be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and any levy made under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would be invalid.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of their power under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act issued a notification to the effect that if the tax had been levied and collected in respect of a sale or purchase of declared goods under Section 4, the same goods shall not be subjected to levy and collection under the Central Sales Tax Act. Apart from the doubt on the applicability of this notification to the facts of this case, that notification came into force only on 28th December, 1963, long after the assessment year in question. That notification, therefore, could not be relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No other point is argued by the petitioners. The petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed with costs, counsel's fee Rs. 250.