Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 230 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 12	 1955	 of the Orissa High Court in 0. J. C. No. 60 of 1952. C. K. Daphtary	 Solicitor General of India	 R. Ganapathi Iyer and R. H. Dhebar	 for the appellants. section N. Andley	 J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshuar Nath	 for the respondent. April 15. The Judgment of Das C. J. and 523 Venkatarama Aiyar J. was delivered by Das C. J. The Judgment of section K. Das and Vivian Bose JJ. was delivered by section K. Das J. Sarkar J. delivered a separate judgment. DAS C. J. We agree that this appeal must be allowed in part but we prefer to rest our judgment on one of the material points on a ground which is different from that adopted by our learned Brother section K. Das J. in the judgment which has just been delivered by him and which we have had the advantage of perusing. The Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa XIV of 1947)	 hereinafter referred to as the said Act received the assent of the Governor General on April 26	 1947	 when section I of 'the Act came into force. On August 1	 1947	 a Notification was issued by the Government of Orissa bringing the rest of the said Act into force in the Province of Orissa	 as it was then constituted. Section 4	 as it stood at all times material to this appeal	 ran as follows: " 4(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 5	 6	 7 and 8 and with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may	 by notification in the Gazette	 appoint	 being not earlier than thirty days after the date of the said notification	 every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified: Provided that the tax shall not be payable on sale involved in the execution of a contract which is shown to the satisfaction of the Collector to have been entered into by the dealer concerned on or before the date so notified. (2)Every dealer to whom subsection (1) does not apply shall be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000. (3)Every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable until the expiry of three consecutive years	 during each of 524 which his gross turnover has failed to exceed Rs. 5	000 and such further period after the date of such expiry as may be prescribed and on the expiry of this latter period his liability to pay tax shall cease. (4)Every dealer whose liability to pay tax has ceased under the provisions of sub section (3) shall again be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during Which his gross turnover again exceeds Rs. 5	000. " On August 14	 1947	 a notification was issued by the Government of Orissa appointing September 30	 1947	 as the date with effect from which that sub section was to come into force in the then province of Orissa. On January 1	 1948	 by a covenant of merger executed by its ruler	 the feudatory State of Pallahara merged into the province of Orissa. In exercise of the powers delegated to it by the Government of India under what was then known as the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act	 1947	 the Government of Orissa on December 14	 1948	 issued a notification under section 4 of that Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act	 extending the Orissa Sales Tax Act to the territories of the erstwhile feudatory States	 including Pallahara which had merged into the province of Orissa. On March 1	 1949	 a notification under section 1(3) was issued by the Government of Orissa bringing sections 2 to 29 of the said Act into force in the added territories. On the same day another notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Act	 which was in the following terms: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947) as applied to Orissa State	 the Government of Orissa are pleased to appoint the 31st March	 1949	 as the date with effect from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year ending the 31st March	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the said Act on sales effected after the said date. " It was after this notification had been. issued that the respondents were sought to be made liable to tax. The respondents were assessed under the said Act 525 for five quarters ending respectively on September 30	 1949	 December 31	 1949	 June 30	 1950	 September 30	 1950	 and December 31	 1950. It will be noticed that the first two quarters related to a period prior to the commencement of the Constitution and the remaining three quarters fell after the Constitution came into force. The Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack having assessed the respondents to Sales Tax under the said Act for each and all of the said five quarters and the respondent 's several appeals against the said several assessment orders under the said Act having been dismissed on April 12	 1952	 the respondents filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the Orissa High Court praying	 inter alia	 for a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing the said assessment orders and for prohibiting the appellants from realising the tax so assessed or from making assessments on them in future. The contention of the respondents before the High Court was that the notification issued by the Government of Orissa on March 1	 1949	 under section 4(1) being invalid in that it ran counter to the provisions of that sub section	 no part of the charging section came into force and consequently they were not liable to tax at all for any of the five quarters. As regards the three quarters following the commencement of the Constitution	 they urged an additional plea	 namely	 that the assessment orders for those three quarters were invalid by reason of the provisions of article 286 of the Constitution. The High Court accepted both these contentions and by its judgment and order pronounced on April 12	 1955	 cancelled the assessments. The Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack	 and the Collector of Commercial Taxes. Cuttack	 have appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court. As regards the assessment orders for the three post ' Constitution quarters	 the decision of the High Court purports to have proceeded on the decision of this Court in the State of Bombay vs United Motors (India) Ltd. (1). We find ourselves in complete agreement with (1) ; 67 526 our learned Brother section K. Das J. for reasons stated by him that the assessment orders for the three post Constitution quarters were hit by cl. (1) of article 286 and also section 30 (1) (a) (1) of the Act and were rightly held by the High Court to be without jurisdiction. It is with regard to the assessment orders for the two pre Constitution quarters that we have come to a conclusion different from that to which our learned Brother has arrived. We proceed to state our reasons. The impugned notification	 as hereinbefore stated	 was issued on March 1	 1949	 under section 4 (1) of the said Act. Under that sub section every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 would be liable to pay the tax under the Act on sales effected after the date " so notified "	 that is to say	 the date which the provincial Government might by notification in the Gazette appoint. It is clear	 therefore	 that section 4 (1) by its own terms determined the persons on whom the tax liability would fall but left it to the provincial Government only to appoint the date with effect from which the tax liability would commence. It follows	 therefore	 that the only 'power conferred by section 4 (1) on the Government was to appoint	 by a notification in the Official Gazette	 a date with effect from which the tax liability would attach to the dealers described and specified in the sub section itself as the persons on whom that liability would fall. The Government of Orissa issued the notification	 hereinbefore quoted	 " in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 4 " and appointed March 31	 1949	 as the date with effect from which the tax liability would commence. It was none of the business of the Government of Orissa to say on what class of dealers the tax liability would fall	 for that had been already determined by the sub section itself Therefore	 by the notification the Government of Orissa properly exercised its powers under sub section (1) in so far as it appointed March 31	 1949	 as the date	 but it exceeded its powers by proceeding to say that all dealers whose gross turnover during the year ending 527 March 31	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 should be liable to pay tax under the Act. This part of the notification clearly ran counter to the sub section itself	 for under that sub section it is only those dealers whose gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 " during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act " that became liable to pay the tax. For the purposes of the five assessment orders it made no difference whether the Act is taken to have commenced on December 14	 1948	 when it was extended to the feudatory States by notification under section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act	 1947	 or on March 1	 1949	 when the notification under section 1 (3) was issued	 for in either case the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act was April 1	 1947	 to March 31	 1948. The position	 therefore	 is that by the earlier part of the impugned notification the Government of Orissa properly and rightly exercised its power in appointing March 31	 1949	 as the date with effect from which the liability to pay tax under the Act would commence	 but by its latter part did something more which it had no business to do	 i. e.	 to indicate	 contrary to the sub section itself	 that those dealers whose gross turnover during the year ending on March 31	 1949	 would be liable to pay tax under the Act. The notification in so far as it purports to determine the class of dealers on whom the tax liability would fall	 was certainly invalid. The question that immediately arises is as to whether the whole notification should be adjudged invalid as has been done by the High Court and as is proposed to be done by my learned Brother section K. Das J. or the two portions of the notification should be severed and effect should be given to the earlier part which is in conformity with section 4(1) and the latter part which goes beyond the powers conferred by the subsection to the Government of Orissa should be rejected. Immediately the question of severability arises. Are the two portions severable ? We find no difficulty in holding that the portion of the notification which went beyond the powers conferred on the Government of Orissa is quite clearly and easily severable from that 528 which was within its powers. It cannot possibly be said that had the Government of Orissa known that it had no power to determine the persons on whom the tax liability would fall it would not have appointed a date at all. In our view there is no question of the two parts being inextricably wound up. We	 therefore	 hold that the notification	 in so far as it appointed March 31	 1949	 as the date with effect from which liability to pay tax would commence was valid and the rest of the notification was invalid and must be treated as surplus without any legal efficacy. The result	 therefore	 is that the charging section was effectively brought into force and the entire charging section became operative and dealers could be properly brought to charge under the appropriate part of the charging section. It is true that the notification having also stated that the dealers	 whose gross turnover exceeded 5	000 (luring the year ending March 31	 1949	 would be liable to pay the tax	 the sales tax authorities naturally applied their mind to the question whether during the year ending March 31	 1949	 the gross turnover of the respondents exceeded the requisite amount	 but did not inquire into the question whether the respondent 's gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act which in this case was the financial year from April 1	 1947 to March 31	 1948. If the matter stood there	 it would have been necessary to send the case back to the Sales Tax Officer to enquire into and ascertain whether the quantum of the gross turnover of the respondents during the last mentioned financial year ending on March 31	 1948	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 or it did not. But a remand is not called for because it appears from the judgment under appeal that it was conceded that for the period April 1	 1949	 till the commencement of the Constitution on January 26	 1950	 the respondents would have been liable to pay sales tax provided a valid notification had been issued	 under sub section (1) of section 4. This concession clearly amounts to an admission that the gross turnover of the respondents during the financial 529 year ending on March 31	 1948	 which was the year immediately preceding March 31	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000. We have already held that the notification ' issued under section 4(1) in so far as it appointed March 31	 1949	 as the date with effect from which the liability to pay sales tax would commence was good and valid in law. That finding coupled with the concession mentioned above relieves us from the necessity of remanding the case to the sales tax authorities. Even if we assume	 contrary to the aforesaid concession	 that the gross turnover of the respondents during the financial year ending on March 31	 1948	 did not exceed Rs. 5	000 and	 therefore	 section 4 (1) did not apply to them the respondents will still be liable to pay the sales tax for the two pre Constitution quarters under section 4 (2). For reasons stated above we hold that the assessment orders for the three post Constitution quarters were invalid and we accordingly agree that this appeal	 in so far as it is against that part of the order of the High Court which cancelled the assessment orders for those three post Constitution quarters	 should be dismissed. We further hold that the assessments for the two pre Constitution quarters were valid for reasons stated above and accordingly we agree in allowing this appeal in so far as it is against that part of the order of the High Court which cancelled the assessment orders for the two pre Constitution quarters Oil the ground that the notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Act was wholly invalid. Under the circumstances of this case we also agree that the parties should bear their own costs in the High Court as well as in this Court. section K. DAS J. This appeal on behalf of the assessing authorities	 Cuttack	 has been brought pursuant to an order made on January 17	 1956	 granting them special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa dated April 12	1955	 by which the High Court quashed certain orders of assessment of sales tax made against the respondent. The short facts are these. The respondent	 Messrs.B. C. Patel and Co.	 is a partnership firm carrying on 530 the business of collection and sale of Kendu leaves. The firm has its headquarters at Pallahara	 which was formerly one of the Feudatory States of Orissa and merged in the. then province of Orissa by a merger agreement dated January 1	 1948. The Sales Tax authorities	 Cuttack	 in the State of Orissa	 assessed the respondent to sales tax in respect of sales of Kendu leaves which took place for five quarters ending on September 30	 1949	 December 31	 1949	 June 30	 1950	 September 30	 1950 and December 31	 1950. It should be noted that two of the aforesaid quarters related to a period prior to the commencement of the Constitution	 and the remaining three quarters were post Constitution. The facts which the Sales Tax authorities found were (I.) that the respondent collected Kendu leaves in Orissa and sold them to various merchants of Calcutta	 Madras and other places on receipt of orders from them	 (2) that the goods were sent either f. o. r. Talcher or f. o. r. Calcutta	 and (3) the sale price was realised by sending the bills to the purchasers for payment. The admitted position was that the goods were delivered for consumption at various places out side the State of Orissa. The Sales Tax authorities proceeded on the footing that all the sales took place in Orissa even though the goods were delivered for con sumption at places outside Orissa. By five separate assessment orders dated May 31	 1951	 the Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack	 held that the sales having taken place in Orissa	 the respondent was clearly liable to sales tax for the pre Constitution period and	 for the post Constitution period	 though the sales came within cl. (2) of article 286 of the Constitution	 the respondent was liable to sales tax under the Sales Tax Continuance Order	 1950	 made by the President. These findings were affirmed by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax	 Orissa	 on appeal	 by his order dated April 12	 1952. The respondent assessee then filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Orissa and prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing the aforesaid orders of assessment. The case of the respondent before the High Court was that the assessment orders. 	 both with 531 regard to the pre Constitution and post Constitution periods	 were invalid and without jurisdiction. The High Court accepted the case of the respondent and held that the assessment orders for the entire period were invalid and without jurisdiction. The present appeal has been brought from the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa dated April 12	 1955. Though before the Sales Tax authorities and in the High Court	 an attempt was made on behalf of the respondent assessee to show that there were no completed sales in Orissa and what took place in Orissa was a mere agreement to sell	 that question is no longer at large before us. The Sales Tax authorities found against the respondent on that question and the High Court did not consider it necessary to decide it on the petition filed by the respondent. The High Court proceeded on certain other grounds pressed before it by the respondent	 and we proceed now to consider the validity of those grounds. The grounds are different 	 in respect of the two periods	 pre Constitution	 and post Constitution	 and it will be convenient to take these two periods separately. But before we do so	 it is necessary to state some facts with regard to the enactment and enforcement of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa XlV of 1947)	 hereinafter referred to as the Act	 in the old province of Orissa and the ex Feudatory State of Pallahara. The Act received the assent of the Governor General on April 26	 1947	 and was first published in the Orissa Gazette on May 14	1947. Section I came into force at once in the old province of Orissa and sub section (3) of that section said that " the rest of the Act shall come into force on such date as the Provincial Government may	 by notification in the Gazette	 appoint ". The Provincial Government of Orissa notified August 1	 1947	 as the date on which the rest of the Act was to come into force in the province of Orissa. It is neces sary at this stage to refer to the charging section	 namely section 4 of the Act	 which is set out below as it stood at the relevant time: " 4. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 5	 6	 7 532 and 8 and with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may	 by notification in the Gazette	 appoint	 being not earlier than thirty days after the date of the said notification	 every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified. (2) Every dealer to whom subsection (1) does not apply shall be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000. (3)Every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable until the expire of three consecutive years	 during each of which his gross turnover has failed to exceed Rs. 5	000 and such further period after the date of such expiry as may be prescribed and on the expiry of this latter period his liability to pay tax shall cease. (4)Every dealer whose liability to pay tax has ceased under the provision of sub section (3) shall again be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover again exceeds Rs. 5	000. " It is to be noticed that for a liability to arise under sub section (1) of section 4	 a notification by the Provincial Government is necessary	 and the notification must fix the date from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified. Such a notification was issued for the old province of Orissa on August 30	 1947	 and September 30	1947	 was fixed as the date with effect from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year ending March 31	 1947	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 was made liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the said date. This was the position in the old province of Orissa. We have already stated that the 533 ex Feudatory State of Pallahara was merged into the old province of Orissa by a merger agreement dated January 1	 1948. After the merger of Pallahara in the old province of Orissa	 the Government of Orissa under the delegated authority of the Central Government and exercising the powers under section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act	 1947 (XLVII of 1947) (as it was then called) applied the Act to the former Orissa States including Pallahara by a notification dated December 14	 1948. The only modification made in applying the Act to the Orissa States was to substitute the words " Orissa States "for the words " Province of Orissa "	 wherever they occurred in the Act. 	 By merely applying the Act to the Orissa States on December 14	 1948	 all sections of the Act did not come into force in that area at once	 since a notification under sub section (3) of section 1 was necessary to bring into force sections 2 to 29. Such a notification was issued on March 1	 1949. The notification was in these terms: " In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (3) of section 1 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947)	 as applied to Orissa States	 the Government of Orissa are pleased to appoint the 1st day of March	 1949	 as the date on which sections 2 to 29 of the said Act shall come into force The position therefore was this. Section 1 of the Act came into force in Pallahara on December 14	 1948	 and the remaining sections came into force on March 1	 1949	 namely	 those sections which dealt with the liability of a dealer to pay sales tax	 set tip a machinery for collection of the tax and dealt with other ancillary matters. A notification under sub section (1) of section 4 was also necessary for a liability to arise under that sub section in the said area	 and such a notification was issued on March 1	 1949. That notification must be quoted in full	 as one of the points for our decision is the validity of the notification. The notification read: " In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 4 of the Orissa Sales Tax. Act	 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947)	 as applied to Orissa States	 the Government of Orissa are pleased to 68 534 appoint the 31st March	 1949	 as the date with effect from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year ending the 31st March	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the said Act on sales effected after the said date ". Two other provisions of the Act must be referred to here. The word "dealer" is defined in section 2(c) in these terms : " 'dealer ' means any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in Orissa	 whether for commission	 remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or a Hindu joint family	 and any society	 club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members; ". The word " year " is defined ins. 2(j) and means the financial year. Now	 with regard to the pre Constitution period the High Court has found that the notification under subs. (1) of section 4 dated March 1	 1949	 was an invalid notification and therefore the respondent was not liable to tax under that subsection in respect of the transactions which took place in the pre Constitution period. The reason why the High Court has held that the notification in question was invalid must now be stated. The scheme of sub section (1) of section 4 is	 firstly	 to fix a date	 not earlier than thirty days after the date of the notification	 from which the liability is to commence; and	 secondly	 to impose a liability on	 every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 5	000. The tax liability is on transactions of sale which take place after the notified date (which must necessarily be after the commencement of the Act); but in determining on which class of dealers	 the incidence of taxation will fall	 the crucial period as mentioned in the sub section itself is the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. Therefore	 the subsection contemplates two. matters	 one of which may be called the 'relevant date '	 and the other 'relevant period '. So far as the old province of Orissa was concerned	 there was no difficulty. The notification fixed September 30	 1947	 as the relevant date	 and the year immediately preceding 535 the commencement of the Act in the old province of Orissa was the relevant period	 viz.	 the financial year 1946 47	 i. e.	 April 1	 1946 to March 31	 1947. Therefore dealers whose gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 in 1946 47	 became liable under sub section (1) of section 4 to tax on transactions of sale after September 30	 1947	 in the old province of Orissa. The notification for the Orissa States	 however	 fixed March 31	 1949	 as the relevant date ; but in determining the class of dealers who would be subject to the liability	 it took the year ending March 31	 1949	 as the relevant period. This was clearly a mistake	 because under sub section (1) of section 4 the crucial year is the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. The Act commenced in the Orissa States either on December 14	 1948	 or on March 1	 1949	 and the financial year immediately preceding was the year 1947 48	 i. e.	 April 1	 1947 to March 31	 1948. The notification would have been in consonance with the subsection	 if it had mentioned the year ending March 31	 1948	 (instead of March 31	 1949) as the crucial year for determining the class of dealers who would be subject to the liability under sub section (1) of section 4. This mistake in the notification is the ground on which the High Court held that the assessments for the two quarters of the pre Constitution period were invalid and without jurisdiction. The learned Solicitor General who has appeared for the appellants has conceded that a mistake was made in the notification. However	 lie has argued firstly	 that the mistake was immaterial and secondly	 that the assessment orders for the pre Constitution period were justified under sub section (2) of s: 4. As to the first argument that the mistake was immaterial	 he has submitted that the liability to tax arose tinder the sub section and not under the notification	 and any mistake in the notification did not affect such liability; lie has also submitted that the words and figures which gave rise to the mistake were mere surplusage and could be severed from the rest of the notification. We are unable to accept this argument. For a liability to arise under sub section (1) of section 47 the issue of a; 536 notification is an essential prerequisite	 and unless the notification complies with the requirements of the subsection	 no liability to tax can arise under it. The notification not only fixed the relevant date	 but fixed the relevant period for determining the class of dealers who would be subject to the liability. In doing so	 it made a mistake	 the result of which was that the notification was not in conformity with the law. We do not think that it can be severed in the way suggested by the learned Solicitor General. Now	 we come to the second argument whether the pre Constitution assessment orders are justified under sub section (2) of section 4. The High Court held that they were not	 and gave two reasons for its view: one was that	 subsections (1) and (2) were mutually exclusive and the other was based on the opening words of sub section (2)	 which says that " every dealer to whom sub section (1) does not apply etc. " The High Court expressed the view that if the notification under sub section (1) were correctly drawn up	 the subsection would have applied to the respondent ; therefore	 the opening words of sub section (2) barred the application of the sub section to the respondent. At first sight	 there appears to be some force in this view. But on a closer examination we do not think that the view expressed by the High Court is correct. Sub sections (1) and (2) are mutually	 exclusive only in the sense that they do not operate in the same field ; that is	 the relevant periods for their application are different. The relevant period for the application of sub section (1) is " the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. " Sub section (2) however does not require any notification	 and under it every dealer is liable to pay tax under the Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000. Obviously	 the relevant period for the application of sub section (2) is the year immediately following that during which the gross turnover of a dealer first exceeded Rs. 5	000. The contrast between the two subsections is this: for sub section (1) the crucial year is the year immediately preceding the commencement of 537 the	 Act; but for sub section (2) the crucial	 year is the year in which the dealer 's gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000. We agree that for the same relevant year both sub sections (1) and (2) cannot apply	 because sub section (2) says " Every dealer to whom subs. (1) does not apply etc." Let us	 for example	 take the year 1946 47 in the old province of Orissa. That was the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act in that area	 and sub section (1) applied to all dealers whose gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000	 first or otherwise	 in that year; sub section (2) did not apply to such dealers even if their gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 for the first time	 in that year; because where sub section (1) applies	 sub section (2) does not apply. But what is the case before us? The year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act in the Pallahara area was 1947 48	 and sub section (1) would have applied to the respondent if the notification had mentioned that year. But it did not	 and the result was that it was not necessary to find if the respondent 's gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 in 1947 48. What was found was that the respondent 's gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000 in 1948 49	 that is	 the year ending March 31		 1949	 which was not the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act in the Pallahara area. Obviously	 therefore	 sub section (1) did not apply to the respondent; but he clearly came under sub section The Act came into force in the Orissa States on March 1	 1949. By March 31	 1949	 the respondent 's gross turnover exceeded Rs. 5	000. He was	 therefore	 liable to pay tax under sub section (2 ) with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following March 31	 1949	 that is	 from April 1	 1949. It has been argued for the respondent that the word `first ' in sub section (2) means ` first ' after the commencement of the Act. Assuming this to be correct	 the respondent still comes under sub section (2) because even if the Act came into force on March 1	 1949	 the respondent 's gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000 in the year ending March 31	 1949 which was after the commencement of the Act. 538 We are	 therefore	 of the view that all the requirements of sub section (2) are fulfilled in this case	 and the two assessment orders made against the respondent for the pre Constitution period were validly made under sub section (2) of section 4 of the Act. The effect of the invalid notification under sub section (1) was that there was no liability thereunder	 and no dealers were liable to pay tax under that sub section. But that did not mean that any dealer who properly came under sub section (2) was free to escape his liability to pay tax. Surely	 the position cannot be worse than what it would have been if the Provincial Government had failed to issue a	 notification under sub section We now turn to the post Constitution period. The short ground on which the High Court held the assessment orders for this period to be invalid was based on the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. (1) Said the High Court: " Clause (1) of Article 286 prohibited a State from taxing a sale unless such sale took place within the State as explained in the Explanation to the clause of the Article. Similarly	 clause (2) of that Article restricted the power of a State to tax a sale which took place in the course of inter State trade or commerce '. Doubtless	 by virtue of the proviso to that clause an Order by the President may save taxation on such inter State sales till the 31st March	 1951. The recent S.C. p. 252 hap	 settled the law regarding the true scope of these two clauses of the Article. Where a transaction of sale involves inter State elements if the goods are delivered for consumption in a particular State that State alone can tax the sale by virtue of clause (1) of that Article and by a legal fiction that sale becomes `intra State sale '. Clause (2) of Article 286 applies to those transactions of sale involving inter State elements which do not come within the scope of clause (1) of that Article. On the admitted facts of the present case	 clause (1) of Article 286 would apply. The sales involve inter State elements inasmuch as the buyers are outside Orissa	 price is paid outside Orissa and (1) ; 539 goods are delivered for consumption outside Orissa. Hence	 by virtue of clause (1) of Article 286 as explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court	 the State of Orissa is not competent to tax such transactions of sale. " The learned Solicitor General has rightly pointed out that in a later decision of this Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State of Bihar and Others (1)	 which was	 not available to the High Court when it delivered its judgment	 the view expressed in the United Motors	 case (2) was departed from in so far as the earlier decision held that cl. (2) of article 286 of the Constitution did not affect the power of the State in which delivery of goods was made to tax inter State sales or purchases of the kind mentioned in the Explanation to cl. (1) and the effect of the Expla nation was that such transactions were saved from the ban imposed by article 286 (2). The learned Solicitor General	 therefore	 contends that on the basis of the later decision	 the assessments made should be held to be valid under the Sales Tax Continuance Order 1950	 made by the President	 even though the sales took place in course of inter State trade or commerce. It is necessary to state here that by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amendment) Order	 1951	 made by the President in exercise of the power given by cl. (2) of article 372 of the Constitution	 section 30 was inserted in the Act to bring it into accord with the Constitution	 from January 26	 1950. Section 30 which in substance reproduced article 286 of the Constitution	 as it then stood	 was in these terms " 30. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (a) a tax on sale or purchase of goods shall not be imposed under this Act	 (i) where such sale or purchase takes place outside the State of Orissa; or (ii) where such sale or purchase takes place	 in the course of import of the goods into	 or export of the goods out of	 the territory of India; (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods (1) (2) ; 540 shall not	 after the 31st day of March	 1951	 be imposed where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter State trade or commerce except in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide. (2) The explanation to clause (1) of Article 286 of the Constitution shall apply for the interpretation of sub clause (i) of clause (a) of sub section (1). We are of the view that the Bengal Immunity decision (1) does not really help the learned Solicitor General to establish his contention that the assessments for the post Constitution period were valid. The admitted position was that the goods sold were delivered for consumption at various places outside the State of Orissa. Therefore	 under cl. (1) (a) of article 286 read with the Explanation as also under section 30 of the Act	 the sales were outside Orissa. It is true that the Bengal Immunity decision (1) took a view different from that of the earlier decision in so far as it held that inter State sales were converted into intra State sales by the Ex planation; but it was pointed out that the States ' power with respect to a sale or purchase might be hit by one or more of the bans imposed by article 286. With reference to the different clauses of article 286	 it was observed in the majority judgment of the Bengal Immunity decision(1): " These several bans may overlap in some cases but in their respective scope and operation they are separate and independent. They deal with different phases of a sale or purchase but	 nevertheless	 they are distinct and one has nothing to do with and is not dependent on the other or others. The States ' legislative power with respect to a sale or purchase may be	 hit by one or more of these bans. Thus	 take the case of a sale of goods declared by Parliament as essential by a smaller in West Bengal to a purchaser in Bihar in which goods are actually delivered as a direct result of such sale for consumption in the State of Bihar. A law made by West Bengal without the assent of the President taxing this sale will be unconstitutional because (1) it will offend Article 286 (1) (a) as the gale has taken place outside the territory by virtue of the (1) 541 Explanation to clause (1) (a)	 (2) it will also offend Article 286 (2) as the sale has taken place in the course of inter State trade or commerce and (3)such law will also be contrary to Article 286 (3) as the goods are essential commodities and the President 's assent to the law was not obtained as required by clause (3) of Article 286. This appears to us to be the general scheme of that article. " (see pp. 638 639 of the report). At p. 647 of the report	 it was further observed " The operative provisions of the several parts of Article 286	 namely	 clause (1) (a)	 clause (1) (b)	 clause (2) and clause (3) are manifestly intended to deal with different topics and	 therefore	 one cannot be projected or read into another. On a careful and anxious consideration of the matter in the light of the fresh arguments advanced and discussions held oil the present occasion we are definitely of the opinion that the Explanation in clause (1) (a) cannot be legitimately extended to clause (2) either as an exception or as a proviso thereto or read as curtailing or limiting the ambit of clause (2). " As to the President 's order	 it was stated at p. 656: " It will be noticed that under that proviso the President 's order was to take effect " notwithstanding that the imposition of such tax is contrary to the provisions of this clause ". This non obstante clause does not	 in terms	 supersede clause (1) at all and	 therefore	 prima facie	 the President 's order was subject to the prohibition of clause (1) (a) read with the Explanation. " Obviously	 therefore	 even on the Bengal Immunity decision. (1) the assessments for the post Constitution period in this case were hit by cl. (1) (a) of article 286 as also section 30 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and were rightly held to be without jurisdiction. The result	 therefore	 is that in our view this appeal should succeed in part	 as we hold that the assessments for the two quarters of the pre Constitution period were valid under sub section (2) of section 4 of the Act and the (1) 69 542 assessments for the post Constitution period were invalid. In view of the divided success of the parties we further think that they should bear their own costs in the High Court and in this Court. SARKAR J. The respondents are a firm of merchants carrying on business in a part of the State of Orissa which was formerly the feudatory State of Pallahara. This State of Pallahara had merged in the Province of Orissa under an agreement with the Government of India	 dated January 1	 1948. On December 14	 1948	 the Government of Orissa under the powers conferred by section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act	 1947	 and with the permission of the Government of India	 issued a Notification applying the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa XIV of 1947)	 passed by the Legislature of Orissa	 to the areas which previously constituted the feudatory States including Pallahara	 then merged in Orissa. The respondents were assessed to sales tax under this Act in respect of their sales which took place during five quarters between July 1	 1949 and December 31	 1950. They had appealed under the provisions of the Act to higher authorities from the original orders of assessment	 but were unsuccessful. They then applied to the High Court of Orissa on November 11. 1952	 for an appro priate writ directing the Sales Tax Officer the assessing authority and one of the appellants herein	 to refrain from realizing the tax or from giving effect to the assessment orders in any manner whatsoever and quashing such orders and also prohibiting future assessment. By its judgment delivered on April 12	 1955	 the High Court allowed the petition and cancelled the assessment orders. From that judgment the present appeal has come to this Court. The question that I propose to discuss in this judgment is whether the respondents are liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act in the circumstances which existed in this case and to which	 I shall refer a little later. The sections of the Act under which the tax is sought to be levied are set out below: S.1. (1) This Act may be called the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947. 543 (2) It extends to the whole of the Province of Orissa. (3)This section shall come into force at once and the rest of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Provincial Government may	 by notification in the Gazette	 appoint. In this Act	 unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context	 (j) " year " means the financial year. section 4. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 5	 6	 7 and 8 and with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may	 by notification in the Gazette	 appoint	 being not earlier than thirty days after the date of the said notification	 every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified: Provided that the tax shall not be payable on sale involved in the execution of a contract which is shown to the satisfaction of the Collector to have been entered into by the dealer concerned on or before the date so notified. (2)Every dealer to whom sub section (1) does not apply shall be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000. (3)Every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable until the expiry of three consecutive years	 during each of which his gross turnover has failed to exceed Rs. 5	000 and such further period after the date of such expiry as may be prescribed and on the expiry of this latter period his liability to pay tax shall cease. (4)Every dealer whose liability to pay tax has ceased under the provisions of sub section (3) shall again be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover again exceeds Rs. 5	000. 544 It is conceded that the respondents are dealers within the meaning of the Act. The term " turnover " is defined in the Act but for the purpose of this judgment it can be taken in its popular sense. It is also unnecessary to consider sections 5	 6	 7 and 8 of the Act	 for nothing turns on them in this appeal. Section I of the Act came into force in the Pallahara area on December 14	 1948	 by virtue of the notification of that date mentioned earlier. Oil March 1	 1949	 the Government of Orissa issued under section 1 (3) of the Act a notification	 being Notification No. 2267/F appointing that date as the date on which the	 rest of the Act would come into force in the Pallahara area. It is not in dispute that March 1	 1949	 has to be considered as the date of the commencement of the Act in the Pallahara area. That is the result of the definition of the commencement of an Act given in section 2 (8) of the Orissa General Clauses Act	 1937. As will have been noticed section 4 (1) of the Act required a date to be appointed before liability under it could arise. Such a date had been appointed by the Government of Orissa before the Act was applied to the areas previously belonging to the feudatory States and the Government felt that this appointment of a date would not be an appointment for these areas. The case before us has proceeded oil the basis that appointment was not a proper appointment under this section for these areas. In fact	 the Government of Orissa had oil March 1	 1949	 issued a Notification No. 2269/F	 purporting to appoint a date under section 4 (1) for the areas previously covered by the feudatory States including the Pallahara State	 then merged in Orissa. That Notification is in these terms: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Orissa 	Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947)	 as applied to Orissa States	 the Government of Orissa are pleased to appoint the. 31st March	 1949	 as the date with effect from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year ending the 31st March	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the said Act on sales effected after the said date. 601 might have retired from the contest on a re appraisement of his prospects at the election as compared with those of the deceased contesting candidate. When death removed that contesting candidate from the field	 a person who had given notice of retirement from the contest as aforesaid may as well re consider his position and feel that as compared with the other surviving candidates he would have fair prospects of success at the election and if an election is held after the countermanding of the poll by the returning officer	 he might just as well put forward his candidature and it is provided that in that event he shall not be ineligible for being nominated as a candidate for election after such countermanding ; and there is perfectly good reason for the same	 because otherwise	 withdrawal or retirement might possibly be considered a disqualification or refusal to seek election. This brings us to the provisions as to retirement front contest under section 55A. A candidate might not have withdrawn his candidature within the period prescribed and his name might have been included in the list of contesting candidates published by the returning officer under section 38. Being thus a contesting candidate duly declared as such he would be entitled to go to the poll. He may	 however	 as a result of the election campaign find himself in the predicament that his prospects at the election are meagre and he might even have to face the situation of having to forfeit his security deposit if he went to the poll. There may be a number of motives operating in his mind which it is not necessary to discuss and be may just as well withdraw his candidature and retire from the field. A locus poenitentiae is therefore given to him under section 55A to retire from the contest by giving notice in the prescribed form which has to be delivered to the returning officer on any day not later than 10 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. If a candidate thus retires from the contest	 he decides not to go to the poll and the provision is made in the rules for the correction of the list of contesting candidates so that no elector shall in the absence of necessary information waste his vote upon him. A 602 copy of such notice is to be affixed by the returning officer to his notice board and in the polling station "and each of the remaining	 contesting candidates or his agent is to be supplied with such copy and the notice has also got to be published in the official gazette. Such retirement from contest might result in the number of remaining contesting candidates becoming equal to the number of seats to be filled and section 55A (6) and (7) work out the situation as it would then obtain with reference to sections 53 and 54 and provide that in that event the returning officer is to forth with declare such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats and countermand the poll a fresh election being necessary only in the event of filling the remaining seat or seats	 if ' any. If	 however	 a poll has to be taken under section 53(1) in spite of the retirement of a contesting candidate or candidates from contest is aforesaid the process of election continues in spite of such retirement and the question any arise as to what would happen if any of the contesting candidates who has thus retired dies before the commencement of the poll. If there was nothing more	 section 52 would apply and the returning officer upon being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate Would have to countermand the poll and report the fact to the Election. Commission and also to the appropriate authority. Provision is therefore made in section 55A (5) that any person who has given a notice of retirement under section 55A (2) is deemed not to be a contesting candidate for the purposes of section 52. This is a deeming provision and creates a legal fiction. The effect of such a legal fiction however is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under those circumstances. Unless a contesting	 candidate who had thus retired from the contest continued to be a contesting candidate for the purposes of election and the effect of the death of such contesting (Candidate was " contemplated in section 52	 it would not have been found necessary to enact section 55A (5). It is because such a contesting	 candidate who retires from the 603 contest under section 55A (2) continues to be a. contesting candidate for the purposes of election that it has been considered necessary to provide for the consequence of his death and to exclude such a candidate from the category of contesting candidates within the meaning of the term as used in section 38 of ' the Act	 that is to say	 candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candidates and who had not with drawn their candidature within the period prescribed and who had been included in the list of ' candidates prepared and published by the returning	 officer in the manner prescribed. This provision	 therefore warrants the conclusion that a contesting candidate whose name was included in the list under section 38 but who retires from the contest under section 55A (2) continues to be a contesting candidate for the purpose of the Act though by reason of such retirement it would be unnecessary for the constituency to cast its votes in his favour at the poll. Such candidate continues to be contesting candidate for the purposes of the Act	 notwithstanding his retirement from the contest under section 55A (2). When we come to the provisions of Part VI of the Act relating to disputes regarding election	 we find that there is no definition given in section 79 of the expression " contesting candidate "	 though there are definitions of " candidate " and " returned candidate " to be found therein. An election petition calling in question any election can be presented by any candidate at such election or any elector on one	 or more of the grounds specified in sections 100 (1) and 101 to the Election Commission and a petitioner in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate	 or candidates may further claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Where the petitioner claims such further declaration	 he must join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and also any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practices are made in the petition. The words " other than the petitioner " are meant to exclude the petitioner when he happens to be one of 604 the contesting candidates who has been defeated at the polls and would not apply where the petition is filed for instance by an elector. An elector filing such a petition would have to join all the contesting candidates whose names were included in the list of contesting candidates prepared and published by the returning officer in the manner prescribed under section 38	 that is to say	 candidates who were included in the list of validly nominated candidates and who had not withdrawn their candidature within the period prescribed. Such contesting candidates will have to be joined as respondents to such petition irrespective of the fact that one or more of them had retired from the contest tinder section 55A (2). If the provisions of section 82 which prescribes who shall be joined as respondents to the petition are not complied with	 the Election Commission is enjoined under section 85 of the Act to dismiss the petition and similar are the consequences of noncompliance with the provisions of section 117 relating to deposit of security of costs. If the Election Commission however does not do so and accepts the petition	 it has to cause a copy of the petition to be published in the official gazette and a copy thereof to be served by post on each of the respondents and then refer the petition to an election tribunal for trial. Section 90 (3) similarly enjoins the Election Tribunal to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 82 or section 117 notwithstanding that it has not been dismissed by the Election Commission under section 85. Section 90 (3) is mandatory and the Election Tribunal is bound to dismiss such a petition if an application is made before it for the purpose. Turning now to section 117	 we find that it is a provision relating to the deposit of security for the costs of the petition. When a petitioner presents an election petition to the Election Commission under section 81 he is to enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as security 605 for the costs of the petition. The Government Treasury receipt must show that such deposit has been actually made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India; it must also show that it has been so made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission and it must further show that it has been made as security for the costs of the petition. These are the three requirements of the section which have to be fulfilled. The question	 however	 arises whether the words " in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission " are mandatory in character so that if the deposit has not been made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as therein specified the deposit even though made in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India and as security for the costs of the petition would be invalid and of no avail. If	 for instance	 the petitioner made the deposit either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission itself and obtained a Government Treasury receipt in regard to the same	 could it be contended that in spite of such a deposit having been made	 the said Government Treasury receipt was not in conformity with the requirements of section 117 and the petitioner could be said not to have complied with the requirements of that section so as to involve a dismissal of his petition under section 85 or section 90 (3) ? The extreme case illustrated above has been taken by us only in order to demonstrate to what lengths a literal compliance with the provisions of section 117 can be pushed. The petition is to be presented to the Election Commission	 the security for the costs of the petition has to be given to the Election Commission and section 121 provides for an application to be made in writing to the Election Commission for payment of costs by the person in whose favour the costs have been awarded and yet	 even though the deposit may have been made by a petitioner in favour of the Election Commission and a Government Treasury receipt evidencing the same be enclosed along with his 77 606 petition the provisions of section 117 of the Act can be said not to have been complied with merely because the deposit was made in favour of the Election Commission and not in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. The relationship between the Election Commission on the one hand and the Secretary to the Election Commission on the other need not be scrutinized for the purposes of negativing this contention. It is enough to say that such a contention has only got to be stated in order to be negatived. It would be absurd to imagine that a deposit made either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission itself would not be sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 117 and would involve a dismissal of the petition under section 85 or section 90 (3). The above illustration is sufficient to demonstrate that the words " in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission " used in section 117 are directory and not mandatory in their character. What is of the essence of the provision contained in section 11.7 is that the petitioner should furnish security for the costs of the petition	 and should enclose along with the petition a (Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of one thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India	 is at the disposal of the Election Commission to be utilised by it in the manner authorised by law and is under its control and payable on a proper application being made in that behalf to the Election Commission or to any person duly authorised by it to receive the same	 be he the Secretary to the Election commission or any one else. If	 therefore it can be shown by evidence led before the Election Tribunal that the government Treasury receipt or the chalan which was obtained by the petitioner and enclosed by him along with his petition presented to the Election Commission was such that the Election Commission could on a necessary application in that behalf be in a position to realise the said sum of rupees one thousand for payment of the costs to the successful party it would be sufficient compliance 607 with the requirements of section 117. No such literal compliance with the terms of section 117 is at	 all necessary as is contended for on behalf of the appellant before us. As regards the amendment of a petition by deleting the averments and the prayer regarding the declaration that either the petitioner or an other candidate has been. duly elected	 so as to cure lie defect of nonjoinder of the necessary parties as respondents	 we may only refer to our judgment * about Io be delivered in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1958	 where the question is discussed at considerable length. Suffice it to say here that the Election Tribunal has no power to grant such an amendment	 be it by way of withdrawal or abandonment of a part of the claim or otherwise	 once	 an Election Petition has been presented to the Election (commission claiming such further declaration. Considering Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1957 in the light of the observations made above	 we find that sundararaja Pillai whose name was included in the list of contesting candidates prepared and published by the returning officer under section 38 but who retired from the contest under section 55A (2) before the commencement of the poll was included in the expression " contesting candidate " used in section 82 and was by reason of the first respondent claiming a further declaration that the second respondent had been duly elected	 a necessary party to the petition. Inasmuch as he was not joined as a respondent	 the petition was liable to be dismissed under section 90(3) of the Act. This defect could not be cured by any amendment of the petition seeking to delete the claim for such further declaration and the Election Tribunal was clearly in error in allowing such amendment on the grounds disclosed in 1. A. No. 3 of 1957 or otherwise. In regard to the deposit of security	 however	 the position was quite different. According to the evidence given by K. Nataraja Mudaliar	 head accountant in. charge of the Madurai Taluk sub Treasury	 the amount was kept in the Election Revenue deposit and the monies were at the disposal of the Election Commission ; also that the Election Commission or anyone * Basappa vs Ayyappa	 see p. 6ii	 post. 608 authorised by the Election Commission in that behalf could draw the said monies and no one else could withdraw the same without such authority. If that was so	 there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 117 and there could be no question of dismissing the petition for noncompliance with the provisions of that section. Having regard therefore to the conclusion reached above in regard to the non compliance with the provisions of section 82	 Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1957 will be allowed	 the orders of dismissal made by the High Court on the writ petitions Nos. 531 of 1957 and 532 of 1957 will be set aside	 the orders passed by the Election Tribunal dated July 5	 1957	 will be vacated and the Election Petition No. 147 of 1957 will be dismissed with costs. As the appellant has failed in his contention in regard to the provisions of section 117	 we feel that the proper order for costs should be that each party do bear and pay his own costs here as well as in the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1957 also shares a similar fate. The first respondent therein did not join as party respondents to his petition the two candidates whose names had been included by the returning officer in the list of contesting candidates but who had subsequently retired from the contest before the commencement of the poll. They were necessary parties to the petition in so far as the first respondent had claimed a further declaration that he himself be declared duly elected under section 101. The Election Petition No. 74 of 1957 filed by him	 was thus liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties under section 90(3) of the Act. This appeal will also be accordingly allowed	 the orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 573 and 574 of 1957 will be set aside	 the orders passed by the Election Tribunal on July 13	1957	 will be vacated and Election Petition No. 74 of 1957 will be	 dismissed. The first respondent will pay the appellants costs throughout. So far as Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1958 is concerned	 the difficulty which faces the appellant is that we 609 have nothing on the record of the appeal to show what were the exact terms of the deposit made by the second respondent under section If 7. The copy of the chalan which is cyclostyled at p. 45 of the record is deficient in material particulars and does not throw any light on the question. The appellant no doubt made an application to the Election. Tribunal to try his objection as regards the non compliance with the provision	 	 of that section as a preliminary objection and determine whether the second respondent had complied with the provisions of section 117 and if not to dismiss his petition. The Election Tribunal	 however	 did not decide this preliminary objection but ordered that the trial of the petition (lo proceed. The High Court before whom the Writ Petition M. J. No. 480 of 1957 was filed also came to the same conclusion as it thought that the matter could be decided at the time of hearing itself and dismissed the application. We are of opinion that both the Election Tribunal and the High Court were wrong in the view they took. If the preliminary objection was not entertained and a decision reached thereupon	 further proceedings taken in the Election Petition would mean a full fledged trial involving examination of a large number of witnesses on behalf of the and respondent in support of the numerous allegations of corrupt practices attributed by him to the appellant. his agents or others working on his behalf; examination of a large member of witnesses by or on behalf of the appellant controverting the allegations made against him; examination of witnesses in support of ' the recrimination submitted by the appellant against the 2nd respondent; and a large number of visits by the appellant from distant places like Delhi and Bombay to Ranchi resulting in not only heavy expenses and loss of time and diversion of the appellant from his public duty in the various fields of ' activity including those in the House of the People. It would mean unnecessary harassment and expenses for the appellant which could certainly be avoided if the preliminary objection urged by him was decided at the initial stage by the Election Tribunal	 610 We are therefore of the opinion that the orders passed by the High Court in M. J. C. No. 480 of 1957 and by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 341 of 1957 were wrong and ought to be set aside. The Election Tribunal will decide the preliminary objection in regard to the non compliance with the provisions of section 117 by the 2nd respondent in the light of the observations made above and deal with the same according to law. The parties will be at liberty to lead such further evidence before the Election Tribunal as they may be advised. The costs of both the parties	 here	 as well as in the courts below will be costs in the Election Petition to be dealt with by the Election Tribunal hereafter and will abide the result of its decision on the preliminary objection. Appeal	s allowed. Appeal No. 48 of 1958 remanded.

This appeal by the Sales Tax authorities was directed against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court	 passed under article 226 of the Constitution	 quashing five orders of assessment covering five quarters made against the respondents who carried on the business of collection and sale of Kendu leaves in the erstwhile Feudatory State of Pallaliara to which	 on its merger into the province of Orissa on January 1	 1948	 the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947	 were extended on March 1	 1949. On the same date the Government of Orissa issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Act which was in the following terms: " In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 Of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947)	 as applied to Orissa State	 the Government of Orissa are pleased to appoint the 31st March	 1949	 as the date with effect from which every dealer whose gross turnover during the year ending the 31st March	 1949	 exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay 521 under the said Act on sales effected after the said date Section 4 Of the Act	 inter alia	 provided : " (1) . with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may by notification in the Gazette	 appoint	 being not earlier than 'thirty days after the date of the said notification	 every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded Rs. 5	000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified. (2) Every dealer to whom sub section (1) does not apply shall be liable to pay under this Act with effect from the commencement of the year immedi ately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5	000 ". The goods were admittedly delivered for consumption at various places outside the State and the Sales Tax Officer as well as the Assistant Collector in appeal	 proceeding on the basis that the sales took place in the State	 held that the respondents were liable to Sales Tax for all the five quarters	 two of which fell before the commencement of the Constitution and three thereafter. The contention of the respondents before the High Court was that the notification under section 4(1) Of the Act was invalid as it ran counter to the provisions of that sub section and no part of that charging section could	 therefore	 come into force. It was further contended that the assessment for the three quarters following the commencement of the Constitution was invalid by reason or article 286 of the Constitution. The High Court found entirely in favour of the assessee : Held (per Das C. J.	 Venkatarama Aiyar	 section K. Das and Vivian Bose	 jj.)	 that the decision of the High Court in so far as it related to the three post Constitution quarters was correct and must be upheld. The orders of assessment for those quarters contravened both article 286 of the Constitution and section 30(r)(a)(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and were without jurisdiction and must be set aside. So far as the two pre Constitution quarters were concerned	 the assessees were clearly liable under section 4(2) of the Act. Per Das C. J. and Venkatarama Aiyar J. The first part of the impugned notification	 appointing the date from which the liability was to commence	 was in consonance with section 4(1) Of the Act and	 therefore	 clearly intra vires	 whereas the second part	 indicating the class of dealers on whom the liability was to fall	 went beyond that section and must	 therefore	 be held to be ultra vires and invalid. But since the two parts were severable	 the invalidity of the second part could in no way affect the validity of the first part which brought the charging section into operation and the assessees were liable for the two pre Constitution quarters under section 4(1) as well. Per section K. Das and Vivian Bose JJ. It would not be correct to say that the second part of the notification was a mere surplusage severable from the rest of the notification. Liability to pay the 522 tax under section 4(1) of the Act could arise only on the issue of a valid notification in conformity with the provisions of that sub section and as there was no such notification the assessees were not liable under section 4(1) Of the Act which did not come into operation. Subsections (1) and (2) Of section 4 are mutually exclusive	 and their periods of application being different both could not apply at the same time and no notification was necessary to bring into operation sub section (2) Of the Act. The goods having been admittedly sold and delivered for consumption outside the State of Orissa	 under article 286 (1)(a) read with the Explanation as also under section 30(1)(a)(1) of the Act	 the sales were outside the State of Orissa and	 consequently	 the assessment for the three post Constitution quarters were without jurisdiction. The State of Bombay vs The United Motors (India) Ltd.	 ; and The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State of Bihar	 	 relied on. Per Sarkar J. There could be no liability under section 4(1) Of the Act till a date was appointed thereunder	 and where the notification	 as in the instant case	 fixing such a date	 was not in terms of that sub clause	 there was no fixing of a date at all and the sub clause could not come into play and no liability could arise under it. It was impossible to ignore the second part of the notification in question as a mere surplusage since the notification read as a whole had one meaning and another without it. The Government could not be heard to say that what it had said in the notification was not what it actually meant. Both the sub clauses Of section 4 having been brought into force at the same time by the same notification	 they applied to all dealers together and contemplated a situation in which the liability of a dealer under sub cl. (1) might arise. It was apparent from the scheme of the Act that sub cl. (2) was not intended to have any operation till a date was appointed under sub cl. (1) and a liability under it might have arisen.