DWIVEDI, J. - (1.)THESE two appeals arise out of two writ petitions. The petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, and we propose to follow this pattern. The leading case is the Special Appeal No. 113. Broad facts of the case have been set out elaborately in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We would not repeat them in detail, but would restate only such facts as are material for deciding the arguments before us.
(2.)THE learned Judge allowed the petitions and quashed the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer (Ex U.P. Dealers), Allahabad. Two notices were issued to the respondents under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. One was issued on 26th December, 1956, and the other on 2nd March, 1957. They were issued by Sri Musharraf Husain, Sales Tax Officer (for Ex U.P. Dealers), Allahabad. They called upon the respondents to produce their account books including purchase invoices, cash memos., bills, receipt books, sales tax registers and other papers before him for enabling him to assess sales tax on them for 1953-54, 1954-55 and for the period between 1st April and 6th September, 1955. They did not obey the notices and filed writ petitions in this Court. In the petitions they challenged the competence of the Sales Tax Officer to proceed to assess them to sales tax on several grounds. The learned Judge accepted their contention and accordingly quashed the notices.
Before us counsel for the respondents has sought to support the judgment of the learned Judge on two grounds. Firstly, it is said that Sri Musharraf Husain was not competent to issue notices to them. Secondly, it is contended that they were not dealers and could not therefore be assessed to sales tax.

(3.)THE first argument is double-barrelled. Firstly, it is contended that the notification appointing Sri Musharraf Husain as an assessing authority is ineffective. The notification is annexure E to the counter-affidavit of Sri Musharraf Husain. It was issued by the State Government on 6th February, 1957. It states that Sri Musharraf Husain is appointed as an assessing authority "with co-extensive jurisdiction extending over all the sales tax circles and sub-circles in Uttar Pradesh and with headquarters at Allahabad, for purposes of levy and collection of U.P. sales tax in terms of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Ordinance, 1956 (No. 3 of 1956)." It is pointed out that on the date of the issue of the notification the said Ordinance stood repealed by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. It is urged that accordingly the notification could not effectively confer power on Sri Musharraf Husain to assess sales tax in accordance with the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. It is evident that the respondents are insisting on giving a literal effect to the notification. Having regard to the conditions which gave birth to the notification we should not, we think, confine the notification to its strict letter. After the decision of the Supreme Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar ([1955] 6 S.T.C. 446; A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661.), no sales tax could be levied on inter-State sales. This decision largely affected the revenues of the States. To relieve their difficulty the President promulgated the Sales Tax Laws Validation Ordinance (No. 3 of 1956). The Ordinance declared that all State laws levying sales tax on inter-State sales up to 6th September, 1955, shall be deemed to be valid. It was promulgated on 30th January, 1956. It was replaced by a Parliamentary Act called the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. The Act came into force on 21st March, 1956. Its scheme was the same as that of the Ordinance. On 12th April, 1956, the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., appointed Sri Musharraf Husain as an assessing authority for Ex U.P. dealers of West Bengal and certain other regions. The letter of appointment is annexure F to the counter-affidavit. It recites : "It has been decided to take up assessment of Ex U.P. dealers again in view of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956." This letter was followed on 6th February, 1957, by the notification already referred to. It is rather strange that although the letter refers to the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, the notification refers to the extinct Sales Tax Laws Validation Ordinance. We are satisfied that this is the common draftsman's slip. There is no doubt that the State Government intended to appoint Sri Musharraf Husain as an assessing authority for levy and collection of sales tax in accordance with the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act. The surrounding circumstances clearly evince this intention. It is our duty to so construe the notification as to give effect to this unambiguous intention of the State Government with the help of the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. We would accordingly read the notification as appointing Sri Musharraf Husain as an assessing authority for the levy and collection of sales tax in terms of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. If the notification is so read, as, in our view, it should be, then the argument regarding its ineffectiveness could not succeed.