M/S. SAHNEY STEEL PRESS WORKS LTD. & ANR.versusTHE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.

    780


A                      M/S. SAllNEY STEEL A.'ID PRESS
                            WORKS LTD. & ANR.
                                     v.
                    THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.

                           SEPlliMBER 10, 1985
B
                [R.S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. j

          Central Sales Tax Act, 1950, section 3(a) - Interstate Sales
    - Goods manufactured according to the specifications received at
    the registered office at Hyderabad and all other activities
    "including that of booking orders, sales despatching, billing and
c   receiving of the sale price carried out by the branch offices
    situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh - The transactions
    are inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3(a) of the
    Central Sales Tax Act.

          M/s Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. is a public limited
    company having its registered office and factory at Hyderabad. It
D   is registere.d as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, as
    well as under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It has
    branch .offices at Amritsar, Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Coim-
    batore and Delhi. They are all registered as dealers under the
    Central Sales Tax Act and under the related State Sales Tax Acts.
    The branches of the company are mainly engaged in effecting sales
E   and. looking after the sales promotion and liaison work. The
    company manufactures (a) standard goods according to the
    company's own designs and specifications, (b) non-standard goods
    according to the designs and specifications supplied by
    customers. In the course of its normal business, the registered
    off ice despatches both standard and non-standard goods manu-
F   factured at the Hyderabad factory to the branches. The branch
    offices situate at Bombay, Calcutta and Coimbatore receive orders
    from customers within and from outside the respective States for
    the supply of goods conforming to definite specifications and
    drawings. Those branch offices then advise the registered office
    at Hyderabad to manufacture and despatch the goods. On receipt of
G   such advice from the branch, the goods are manufactured at the
    Hyderabad factory and thereafter despatched by the registered
    office to the branches by way of transfer of stock. While
    despatching·the goods, sometimes intimation is alao given by the
    registered office to the customer concerned about the despatch of
    the_ gooda to the destination indicated by him. Snch gooda are
H
           SAHNEY STEEL WORKS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER        781


booked to 'self' and seat by lorries. The goods received by the         A
branches from time to time, whether standard goods or
non-standards goods, are entered in tha stock accounts of the
branches and are kept in s toe\« by the .branches for ultimate
deli very to the customers. On the goods reaching the branches,
they are inspected by the custOillers and accepted by them where
the customers are local parties. Where delivery has to be               B
effected to customers of other States, the goods are despatched
to them by the branch. The branches·raise biils and receive the
sales price. The branches furnish 'F'' forms to the registered
office under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act in the case
of stock transfers to the branches.
                                                                        c
        The sale of non-standard goods was assessed to State Sales
  Tax under the Sales Tax Acts of Maharashtra, West llellgal and
  Tamil Nadu. The Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle-II,
  Hyderabad, however, expressed the view that the company was
  liable to Central Sales Tax on the turn over of non-standard
  goods. For the assesSl!lellt year 1979-80 he made an assessment       D
  order dated May 4, 1981 assessing a turn over of Rs.
  l,29,50,248.73 representing what :the petitioners claimed to be
  stock transfers from ·the ·Hyderabad registered office to the
  branches outside the Stste. of Audhra Pradesh. By way of abundant
  caution the petitioners had prayed that in the event of their
  objection to the imposition of Central Sales Tax being overruled
  they should be allO'ied time to collect 'C' forms from the various    E
  customers to whom the branches had effected sales and to submit
  them to the Commercial Tax Officer. The Commercial Tax Officer,
  hi>wever, did not grant the company the further time it sought for
  that purpose. The Commercial Tax Officer has also issued notices
  dated May 2, 1981 seeking to reopen the Central Sales Tax Assess-
  ments already completed for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79. In the     F
  original assessments for those years the Commercial Tax Officer
  had excluded the disputed transactions relating to transfers of
· non-standard goods from the registered office to the branches.
  Hence the Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution
  ·praying for: (i) to quash the assessment order dated May 4, 1981
  made under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assesSl!lellt year       G
  1979-80 and the consequent demand of tax in respect of the non-
  standard ·goods; (ii) to restrain the Commercial Tax·Officer from
   reopening the past assessments; (iii) alternatively, in the event
  of the transactions being held liable under the Central Sales Tax 1
  Act, to afford opportunity to the company to file 'C' forms· to
   enable it to avail of the concessional rate of tax· envisaged        H
  under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax ·Act and (iv) further
    782            SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A
    alternatively to quash the assessments made under the local Sales
    Tax Acts for the assessment years 1978-79 onwards in so far as
    the assessments include the tum over of the aforesaid stock
    transfers transferred by the registered office to its branches.

          Dismissing the petition, the Court
B

         Hl!lll: 1.1 The sale transactions were inter-state sales in as
    much as they satisfy the terms of clause (a) of section 3 of the
    Central Sales Tax Act. [790 BJ

         1.2 It cannot be said that the movement of the goods from
    Hyderabad to the branch office was only for the purpose of
c   enabling the sale by the branch office and was not in the course
    of fulfilment of the contract of sale. Even if the buyer places
    an order with the branch office and the branch office
    communicates the terms and specifications of the orders to the
    registered office and the branch office itself is concerned with
    the sales despatching, billing receiving of the sale price, the
    conclusion must be that the order placed by the buyer is an order
D
    placed with the Company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that
    order the manufactured goods commence their journey from the
    registered office within the State of Andhra Pradesh to the
    Branch office outside the State.for delivery of the goods to the
    buyer. Further, both the registered office and the branch office
    are offices of the same Company, and what in effect does take
E
    place is that the Company from its registered off ice in Hyderabad
    takes the goods to its branch office outside the State and
    arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The registered office and
    branch office do not possess separate juridical personalities.
    The question really is whether the movement of the goods from the
    registered off ice at Hyderabad is occasioned by the order placed
F
    by the buyer or is an incident of the contract. The answer being
    in the affirmative, its movement from the very beginning from
    Hyderabad all the way until delivery is received by the buyer is
    an inter-state movement. [787 A-D,F]

G
         1.3 The fact that the goods were despatched by the branch        I
    office situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh to the buyer
    and not by the registered office at Hyderabad makes no difference
    at all. The manufacture of the goods at the Hyderabad factory and
    their movement thereafter from Hyderabad to the branch office
    outside the State was an incident of the contract entered into
    with the buyer, for it was intended that the same goods should be
H
    delivered by the branch office to the buyer. There was no break
           SAHNEY STEEL WORKS V• COMMERCIAL TAX OHICER         783


in the movement of the goods. The branch office merely acted as a    A
conduit through which the goods passed on their way to the buyer.
It would have been a different matter if the particular goods had
been despatched by the registered office at Hyderabad to the
branch off ice outside the State for sale in the open market and
without reference to any order placed by the buyer. In such a
case if the goods are purchaaed from the branch office, it is not    B
a sale under which the goods coonnenced their movement from
Hyderabad. It is a sale where the goods moved merely from the
branch office to the buyer. The movement of the goods from the
registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the
State cannot be regarded as an incident of the sale made to the
buyer. [ 787 F-H, . 788 A-<:]                                        c
     Eoglisb Electric Colllpany of lDdia Ltd. v. 1be Deputy
Coamercial Tax Officer & Ors.,· [1977] 1 s.c.R. 631; I/Dion of
lDdia and Another v. K.G. Kboala and Co. Ltd. and Others, [1979]
43 s.r.c. 457; Tata l!ugf.neeriIJg and LoC.-.uve eo. Ltd. v.
Assistant ea.tssioner of Ccmlercial Tues & Anr., [1970] .. 26        D
s.r.c. 354 = [1970] 3 s.c,R. 862; State of Bibar & Anr. v. Tata
~ & Locaaotive Co., Ltd. [1971] 27 s.r.c. 127 = [1971]
2 S.c.R. 849 and Balabbagaa BnlascNmd and Another v. State of
Orissa, [1976] 37 S.T.c. 207 referred to.

     [The Court directed: (i) the Coomercial Tax Officer to
afford a reasonable opportunity to the Company to collect 'C'        E
Forms and furnish them to the assessing authority before making
an assessment againat the Company in respect of such tranaac-
tions; (ii) the petitioner Company may make an application to t?e
assessing authority for deleting the turnover of sales found to
be inter-State sales concerned for re-opening the assessments
made under the State Sales Tax Acts and (iii) if the application     F
is made within two months from September 10, 1985., the said
assessing authority should entertain the application, notwith-
standing any period of limitation prescribed for such a proceed-
ing and to dispose of the claim in accordance with law.]

     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 7337 of 1981.         G


     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

     y.s. Chitale and D.N. Misra for the Petitioners.

     N.C. Talukdar, M.C. Bhandare, Miss A. Subhashini, M.N.          H
Shroff and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents.
    784           SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         PATHAl(, J, The first petitioner, M/s Sahney Steel and Press
    Works Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), .is a public
    limited company having its registered office and factory at
    Hyderabad. The second petitioner, Shri Bhupendra Singh Sahney, is
    a Director and shareholder of that Company. The company has
    branches at Amritsar, Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Coimbatore and
    Delhi. The registered office of the Company at Hyderabad is
    registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as
    under the Andhra Prade&h General Sales Tax Act.

         The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
C   stampings and laminations made out of steel sheets which are
    utilised as raw material for making electric motors, transformers
    anu similar goods. The branches of the company are mainly engaged
    in effecting sales and looking after the sales promotion and
    .Liaison work. The Company manufactures (a) standard goods accord-
    ing to the company's own designs and specifications, (b)
    non-standard goods according to the designs and specifications
D   supplied by customt:!rs. In the course of its normal business, the
    rt!gistered office despatches both standard and non-standard goods
    manufactured at the Hyderabad factory to the Branches. Such
    transfers made by the registered office to the branches at
    Bombay, Calcutta and Coi1nbatore of non-standard goods form the
    subject of the instant controversy.
E
           According to the petitioner, the branch offices situate at
    ~ombay,    Cali.:utta and Coimbatore, which themselves are registered
    as dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act and under the related
    State Sales Tax Acts, receive orders from customers within and
    from outside the respective States for the supply of goods
f   conforming to definite specifications and drawings. Those branch
    offlces then advise the registered office at Hyderabad to
    llla.nufacture and despatch the goods. On receipt of such advice
    from the braq.ch, the goods are manu.factured at the Hyderabad
    factory and thereafter despatched by the registered office to the
    branches by way of transfer of stock. While despatching the
G   goods, sometimes intimation is also given by the registered
    office to the customer concerned about the despatch of the goods
    to the destination indicated by him. Such goods are booked to
     'self 1 and sent by lorries. The goods received by the branches
    from time to time, whether standard goods or non-standard goods,
    ~re entered in the stock accounts of the branches and are kept in
R   stock by tl1e branches for ultimate delivery to the customers. On
         SAHNEY STEEL WORKS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [PATHAK, J] 785

                                                                          A
    the goods reaching the branches, they are inspected by the
    customers and accepted by them where the customers are local
    parties. Where delivery has to be effected to customers of other
    States, the goods are despatched to them by the branch. The
    branches raise bills and receive the sales price. The branches
     furnish 'F' forms to the registered office under s.6-A of the
                                                                          B
     Central Sales Tax Act in the case of stock transfers to the
    ·branches. These are the facts set forth in the writ petition.

         It appears that (the sale of non-standard goods was assessed
    to State Sales Tax under the Sales Tax Acts of Maharashtra, West
'   Bengal and Tamil Nadu. The ColIIDlercial Tax Officer, Company
    Circle-II, Hyderabad, however, expressed the view that the
                                                                          c
    company was .liable to C.entral Sales Tax on the turnover of
    non-standard goods and rejected the contention of the Company
    that the pertinent turnover was not ·so liable. For the assessment
    year 1979-80 he made an assessment order dated May 4, 1981
    assessin;; a turnover of Rs.1,29,50,248.73 representing what the
                                                                          D
    petitioners claimed to be stock transfers from the Hyderabad
    registered office to the ·branches outside the State of Andhra
    Pradesh. By way of abundant caution the petitioner had prayed
    that in the event of their objection to the imposition of Central
    Sales Tax being overruled they should be allowed time to collect
    'C' forms from the various customers to whom the branches had
    effected sales and to submit them to the ColIIDlercial Tax Officer.
                                                                          E
    The Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not grant the Company
    the further time it sought for that purpose.

         The petitioners states that the Commercial ·Tax Officer has
    also issued notices datedMay 2, 1981 seeking to reopen the
    Central Sales Tax assessments already completed for the years
                                                                          F
    1977-78 and 1978-79. In the original assessments for those years
    the Commercial Tax Officer had excluded the disputed transactions
    relating to transfers of non-standard goods from the registered
    office to the branches.

          The petitioners, therefore, pray for the quashing of the
                                                                          G
    assessment Order dated May 4, 1981 made under the Central Sales
    Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80, and the consequent
    demand of tax, in so far as the assessment order includes within
    the assessed turnover the value of non-standard goods transferred
    to the branches. The petitioners .also pray for an order re~train­
    ing the Commercial Tax Officer from reopening past assessments
                                                                          H
    for the purpose of including such transfers in the assessable
    turunover. Alternatively, the petitioners pray that in the event
     786           SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


A
     of the transactions being held liable to Central Sales Tax an
     opportunity should be given to the Company to file 'C' forms to
     enable it to avail of the concessional rate of tax envisage.d
     under sub-s.(l) of s.8 read with sub-s.(4) of s.8 of the Central
     Sales Tax Act. A further prayer in the alternative is that the
     assessment made under the local Sales Tax Acts from the assess-
ll
     ment year 1978-79 onwards, in so far as the assessments include
     the turnover of the aforesaid stock transfers transferred by the
     registered office to the branches should be quashed.

           While making the assessment order for the assessment year
     1979-80, .the Commercial Tax Officer found that the branch offices
     of the ccmpany, after procuring orders for the supply of goods
c    with definite specifications and drawings advised the registered
     office at Hyderabad to manufacture and supply the goods in
     accordance therewith. After the goods were so manufactured in the
     factory at Hyderabad, the registered off ice despatched the goods
     to the branches. The goods were collected by the branch offices
     and despatched to various customers according to the orders
     received earlier. The Commercial Tax Officer also found that
D
     except for the manufacture of goods according to the specifica-
     tions received from the customers at the registered office and
     factory at Hyderabad, all other activities including that of
     booking orders, sales despatching, billing and receiving of the
     sale price were being carried on by the branch offices situated
     O'!tside the. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the opinion of the
E
     Commercial Tax Officer the movement of the goods from Hyderabad
     to the stations outside the State was an incident of the contract
     incorporated in the specific orders procured by the branch
     offices, and therefore the ·transactions were inter-state sales
     within the termS of sub-s.(a) of s.3 of the Central Sales Tax
     Act.
F
           The petitioners challenge the finding of the Commercial Tax
     Officer that the transactions in question constitute inter-State
     sales. The petitioner contend that when the registered office of
     the company at Hyderabad despatched the manufactured goods to its
     branch office it .was merely a transfer of       stock from the
     registered office to the branch office, and thereafter the move-
G
     ment of the goods started from the branch office to the buyer. It
     is urged that the registered office and the branch office were
     separately registered as dealers under the Sales Tax law and
     transactions effected by the branch off ice could not be identi-
     fied with transactions effected by the registered office. The
     movement of the goods from Hyderabad to the branch office, it is
H
     SAHNEY ST~EL WORKS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OHICEK [PATHAK, J] 787


sai'.i, was only for the purpose of enabling the sale by tl\e branch   A
office and was not in the course of fulfilment of the contract of
sale. We are unable to agiee. Even if, as in the present case,
the buyer places an order with the branch off ice and the branch
offic~ conmiunicates the terms and specifications of the orders to
the registered office and the branch office itself is concerned
with the sales despatching, billing and receiving of the sale          B
_price, the conclusions must be that the order placed by the buyer
is an order placed with Company, and for the purpose of fulfill-
ing that order the manufactured goods commence their journey from
the registered office within the State. of Andhra Pradesh to the
branch office outside the State for delivery of the goods to the
buyer. We must not forget that both the registered office and the      C
branch office are offices of the same Company, and what in effect
does take place is that the Company from its registered office in •
Hyderabad ta~es the goods to its branch office outside the State
arul arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The registered office
and the branch office do not possess separate juridical personal-
ities. The question really is whether the movement of the goods        D
from the registered office at Hyderabad is occasioned by the
order placed by the buyer or is an incident of the contract. If
it is so, as it appears no doubt to us, its movement from the
very beginning from Hyderabad all the way until delivery is
received by the buyer is an inter-State movement. In English
!Uectric Company of India Ltd. v. 'lbe Deputy Conmerclal Tax
Offieer & Ors. [1977] l s.c.R. 631 this. Court held that when the      E
movement of the goods from one_ State. to another is an incident of
the contract it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale, and
i t does not matter which is the State in which property in the
goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale is. one which
occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. It was
also pointed out that the branches had no independent and              F
separate entity, that they were merely· different agencies, and
even where· a branch office sold the goods to the buyer it was a
sale between the Company and the buyer. ·It is true that in that
case the goods, on manufa~ture at the Madras branch factory, were
directly despatched to the Bombay buyer at his risk and all
prices were shown F.O.R. Madras, and the goods were delivered to       G
the llombay buyer at Bhandup through clearing agents. In the
instant case, the goods were despatched by the branch office
situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh to the buyer and not
by the registered office at Hyderabad. In our opinion, that makes
no differerice at all. The manufacture of the goods at the Hydera-
bad factory and their movement thereafter from Hyderabad to the        H
branch office outside the State was an incident of the contract
     788           SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

      0

A    e ntered into with the buyer, for it was intended that the same
     goods should be delivered by the branch office to the buyer.
     There was no break in the movement of the goods. The branch
     office merely acted as a conduit through which the goods passed
     on their way to the buyer. It would have been a different matter
     if the particular goods had been despatched by the registered
B    office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State for
     sale in the open market and without reference to any order placed
     by the buyer. In such a case if the goo<ls are purchased from the
     branch office, it is not a sale under which the.goods coannenced
     their movement from Hyderabad. It is a sale where the goods moved
     merely from the branch office to the buyer. The movement of the
     goods from the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch
C    office outside the State cannot be regarded as an incident of the
    •sale made to the buyer.

          The law was clarified in Union of India and Aoother v. K.G.
     Khosla and Co. Ltd. and Others. (1979) 43 S.T.C. 457, where this
     Court observed that a sale would be an inter-State sale even if
     the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of
D    goods from one State to another, provided, however, that such
     movement was the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or
     was in incident of that contract. Two cases on opposite sides
     of the line were considered by this Court in K.G. Khosla and Co.
     Ltd. (supra). In Tata Engfoeering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v.
     Assistant Comnissioner of Comercial Taxes & Anr. [1970 j 26
     S.T.C. 354 = [1970] 3 S.C.R. 862, the appellant carried on the
     business of manufacturing trucks in Jamshedpur in the State of
     Bihar. The sales office of the appellant in Bombay used to
     instruct the Jamshedpur factory to transfer stocks of vehicles to
     the stock-yards in various States after taking into account the
     production schedule and requirements of customers in different
F    States. The stocks available in the stock-yards were distributed
     from time to time. to dealers. The transfer of the vehicles from
     the factory to the various stock-yards was a continuous process
     and was not related to the require\n.ent of any particular
     customer. Until an appropriation of the vehicle was made by the
     stock-yard incharge against a contract of sale out of the stocks
G    available w:i.th him it was open to the appellant to allot any
     vehicle to any purchaser or even to transfer the vehicles from
     the stock-yard in the State to a stock-yard in another State. It
     was held on the facts that the sale by the appellant to a
     purchaser from its stock-yard was not an inter-State sale. On the
     other side of the line is St.ate of Bi.bar & Anr. v. Tata Engineer-
H    ing & Locomotive eo. Ltd. [1971J 27 s.T.c. 127 = [1971] 2 s.c.R.
     849. In that case, the turnover in dispute related to sales made
     SAHNEY STEEL WORKS v. COMMERClAL TAX OFfLC~R [PATHAK, J] 789


by the company to its dealers of trucks for being sold in the         A
territo!'ies assigned to them under the dealership agreements.
Each dealer was assigned an exclusive territory and_ under the
agreement between the dealers and the company, they had to place
their indents, pay the price of the goods to be purchased and
obtain delivery orders from the Bombay office of the company. In
pursuance of such delivery orders trucks used to be delivered in
the State of Bihar to be taken over tO the territories assigned
to the dealers. Under the terms of the contracts of sale the
purchaser~ were required to remove. the goods from the State of
Bihar to other States. The Court observed· that if a contract of
sale contained a stipulation for such movement, the sale would be
an inter-State sale.                                                  C

     Considerable reliance has been placed by the petitioner on
one of the illustrations given by this Court in Balabbagas
Hulaschand and Another v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 S.T.C. 207,
where Case No.II was set out as follows:-
                                                                      0
           "Case No.II. - A, who is a   d~aler   in State X, agrees
           to sell goods to B but he books the goods trom State X
           to State Y i U his own name and his agent in State Y
           rec:eives the goods on behalf of A. Thereafter the
           goods are deliv~red to B in State Y and if B accepcs
           them a sale takes -place. It will be seen that in this
           case the movement of goods is neither in pursuance of      E
           the agreement to sell nor is the movement occasioned
           by the sale. The seller himself takes the goods of
           State Y and sells the goods there. This, is, there-
           fore, purely an internal salewhich takes place in
           State Y and falls beyond the purview of section 3(a)
           of the Centl'.'al Sales Tax Act not being an inter-State   F
           sale."

     It is not clear from this illustration whether the goods
were particular and specific goods earmarked for delivery to the
buyer when they commenced their movement• from State X. Apparently
not> because it is pointed out that the movement.of the goods was
neither in pursuance of the agreement to sell nor ·was the move-
~nt occasioned by the sale. The case is distinguishable from the
present one where particular goods were manufactured in Hyderabad
in satisfaction of an order placed by the buyer who desired
delivery outside the State. The goods moved from the registered
office at Hyderabad as the result of a covenant in the contract       H
of sale or an incident of that contract that the goods
    790           SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


    manufactured at Hyderabad according to the specifications
A
    stipulated by the buyer should be the very goods delivered to him
    outside the State.

         Upon all these considerations, we are of opinion that the
    Commercial Tax Officer is right in holding that the sale transac-
    tions were inter-State sales inasmuch as they satisfy the terms
B
    of caluse (a) of s.3 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

         Having held that the disputed transactions are inter-State
    sales, it is only appropriate that an opportunity should be given
    to the Company to collect 'C' Forms from the buyers for the
    purpose of obtaining relief under sub-s.(l) of s.8 read with
c   sub-s.(4) of s.8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The question
    whether the transactions could be described as inter-State sales
    was in doubt all along, and it is only now that the doubt can be
    said to have been finally resolved. Accordingly we direct the
    Comnercial Tax Officer to afford a reasonable opportunity to the
    Company to collect 'C' Forms and furnish .them to the assessing
D
    authority before making an assessment against the Company in
    respect of such transactions. We understand that so far as the
    turnover for the assessment year 1979-80 _ is concerned, the
    assessment order has been set aside in appeal and the case has
    been remanded to the assessing authority for granting sufficient
    time to the Company to file the · 'C' Forms in order to enable it
    to avail of the concessional rate of tax.

          The petitioners have prayed for the further relief that as
    the aforesaid transactions have been held to be inter-State· sales
    their inclusion in the assessments made under the corresponding
    State Sales Act should be deleted. We give liberty to the
    petitioner Company to make an application to the assessing autho-
    ri ty concerned for the grant of such relief, and if the applica-
    tion is made within two months from 10.9.85 we direct the said
    assessing authority to entertain the application, notwithstanding
    any period of limitation prescribed for such a proceeding and to
    dispose of the claim in aqcordance with law.

G
         The writ petition is dismissed .subject to the directions set
    forth above. There is no order as to costs.




    S.R.                                           Petition dismissed.