The contention of the respondent firm in the High Court was that under s. 5, cl. (vi) of the Act, the liability to pay sales tax in respect of hides and skins could only be at a. single point; that the rule limiting the operation of this mode of taxation to licensed dealers was ultra vires and therefore r. 16(5) of tho Madras Genera.I Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, hereinafter ca.lied the Turnover and Assessment Rules, was void and inoperative and had been so held by the Supreme Court in V. M. Syed Mohammed & Cu. v. The State of Madras (1 ); that accepting this interpretation tho Staw of :Madras had deleted cl. (5) of r. 16 by G. 0. 450, He1·enue, dated February 26, 1954, i.e., two days before the making of the assessment order under dispute; that r. 16(5) of the T•.1~!'.love~ and Assessment Rules was the only provision imposing a multiple tax in respect of sales of hides and skins by unlicensed dealers and that tho imposition of tho sales tax after the repeal of that rule was illegal and the tax was without the authority of law. It was also contended that in the taxation scheme under the Act, hides and skins, because of their importance in the international market, were excluded from tho direct operation of s. 3(1) of the Act which was the general charging section and wero given special protection of the single point taxation under s. 5(vi). The (I) [19.si] S.C.R. 11J7.
