M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ declaring that the inter -state safes originated from Pondicherry to the State of Bihar in execution of works contract are exigible to sales tax to Pondicherry jurisdiction under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and further prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of assessment for the year 1994 -95 so far as raising of additional tax demand of Rs. 5,35,223=24 or inter -state sales transactions which is exigible to Pondicherry jurisdiction under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned, as the same being illegal and contrary to law and is wholly without jurisdiction. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate direction to respondent No. 3 to give effect to the tax paid and realized and grant of refund of the said amount.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is a registered company having business activities in every States as well as having manufacturing unit located outside the State of Bihar including Pondicherry and, are registered dealer under Local and Central Sales Tax Acts in the respective States. The petitioner alleged to have filed return and discharged their tax liability for the assessment year 1994 -95. The petitioner claimed exclusion of inter -state sales tax from their Pondicherry unit as well as refund of the sales tax. The Assessing Authority passed order rejecting the petitioners plea and also partially considering credit of Rs. 22,72,227=00 raised additional tax demand without explaining reason for not allowing credit to the balance amount. According to the petitioner, the execution of Railways Electrification contract necessitated manufacturing of specifically described goods as per the order in their Pondicherry works as well as procurement from other source for execution of the works contract. Such manufacturing goods are as per the design and drawings provided by respondent No. 7 - the Railways authority. Such goods are exclusively meant for respondent No. 7 and cannot be sold or diverted for others. Thus the goods so manufactured by the Pondicherry works were dispatched from their Pondicherry works to the contractee place of work at Barwadih in Bihar State. The Assessing Authority considered such supply to be sale within the State of Bihar despite the fact that the petitioner has already discharged its Central Sales Tax liability in Pondicherry and passed order for assessment vide order dated 12.10.1998. The petitioners further case is that such turnover of inter -state sales as effected from Pondicherry, have been subjected to assessment proceedings as well as tax imposed by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 2.10.1998 despite the fact that the transactions have already been subjected to tax by Pondicherry State. Respondents case in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract in the State of Bihar relating to the Railways electrification works for the assessment year 1994 -95. The petitioner filed original annual return showing gross turnover of Rs. 7,48,52,251=00. Thereafter, the petitioner again field revised annual return showing gross turnover of Rs. 4,96,30,535=00. In the revised return, the petitioner claimed exclusion from their gross turnover, the following amount: (A) Rs. 6,33,689.00 - Being difference between the bill value and certified value. (D) Rs. 1,12,07,446.00 - Being the amount of mobilisation advance received from the Contractoree department, which were wrongly included in the gross turnover in the original return. (C) Rs. 1,33,80,581.00 - Being the amount of inter state sale / purchase from Pondicherry.
(3.) FURTHER case of respondent is that in course of hearing of the assessment proceedings, the amount shown at (A) and (B) were found to be justified, hence these two amounts were excluded from their gross turnover as per their submission and after thorough verification. Thereafter, the amount of inter - state sales / purchase from Pondicherry to the tune of Rs. 1,33,80,581=00 showing at (C) above is concerned, it was thoroughly examined and verified in course of hearing of the case and it was found that two independent transactions have taken place and hence, there are two independent sales. The Respondents further case is that the first sale has taken place between Pondicherry manufacturing unit and the petitioner which is undoubtedly an inter -state transaction for which Central Sales Tax at Pondicherry has rightly been paid. Since the second sale has taken place between the petitioner and the contractoree department, in the State of Bihar, which is admittedly an intra - state sale which attracts the levy of Bihar Sales Tax under Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and as such the above amount has been determined as taxable in Bihar and the same has been added to the revised gross turnover of the petitioner. The Respondents further case is that Bihar Sales tax on the above transaction has been legally levied for the reasons that there has taken place two independent sales, one subject to Central Sales Tax at Pondicherry and the other subject to Bihar Sales Tax in the State of Bihar. Further the movement of goods started from Pondicherry and terminated at Petitioners site. After taking the delivery of the goods and storing them by the petitioner, it was used in the works contract for electrification of Railways. After the works of electrification of Railways was complete, the entire structure including the goods in question was transferred to the Contractoree department. It is crystal clear that there was break in the movement of goods from Pondicherry manufacturing unit to the ultimate buyer, i.e. the contractoree department and as such it can, in no case be a single transaction. The Respondents accordingly stated that the claim of Rs. 1,33,80,851=00 has been rightly and legally rejected by the Respondents.;