INDRAJIT MAHANTY; CJ. - (1.)Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Sharma appearing for the petitioner-company as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
(2.)Prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:
"In the premise aforesaid it is prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why:

a) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction, order should not be issued for quashing the order of assessment dtd. 23/11/2016 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala as the same suffers from an inherent jurisdictional error; AND

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ and/or order should not be issued directing the respondents not to levy VAT tax on goods reckoned in the impugned order which have already suffered the Central Sales Tax; AND

c) pass such other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in the case of Projects and Services Centre and Another v. State of Tripura and Others reported in (1991) 82 STC 89 (Gau) whereby a Division Bench of this Court in pari materia similar circumstances that have arisen for consideration in the present case had allowed the prayer of the petitioner therein on a finding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India reported in (1989) 73 STC 370 had repelled similar contention raised by the State and it was declared that sales tax laws passed by the legislatures of the State levying taxes on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract were subject to the restrictions and conditions mentioned in each clause or sub-clause of Article 286 of the Constitution. This Court further directed that in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss this aspect of the matter and held that "the principles for determining when a sale takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce laid down in Sec. 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act would apply equally to transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract."
;