Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.: - A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. We may take the facts in writ petition (C) No.9835 of 1983, filed by M/s. K. B. Handicrafts Emporium as representative of the facts in all the cases. The petitioners are firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of handicrafts items. They are registered Sales Tax Dealers in the State of Haryana. They purchased raw material within the State against declaration forms ST-15, prescribed under Rule 21 of the Haryana General Sales-tax Rules read with S. 24 of the Act. By issuing Form S.T.15, the petitioners undertook that the goods manufactured by them out of the said raw material would be sold by them either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or in the course of export within the meaning of S. 5(l) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A dealer issuing the said Form need not pay the purchase tax on such raw material. After manufacturing the items of handicrafts, the petitioners say, they sold them to dealers in Delhi who, in turn, exported them out of India. At the time of sale of handicrafts to Delhi dealers, the Delhi dealers issued Form-H, prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Rules which means that the goods purchased were meant for export. Neither party paid tax on the said sale/purchase.

2. For the assessment years in question, the Sales Tax Authorities of Haryana levied purchase tax on the purchase of raw material made by the petitioner, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/ s. Murli Manohar and Company, Panipat v. State of Haryana (Civil Writ Petition No. 1227 of 1980), under S. 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. However, the assessing authority computed the tax with reference to the purchase value of the goods exported against Form H. The petitioners did not choose to file an appeal but directly approached this Court by way of this writ petition on the ground that in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murli Manohar there was no point in their pursuing the remedies under the Act in that State.

3. Appeals were preferred in this court against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murli Manohar which have been disposed of by this Court on October 25, 1990 (reported in (1991) 1 SCC 377). This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

4. When these writ petitions came up for hearing, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the decision of this Court in Murli Manohar the writ petitions must be allowed straightway. This was demurred to by the learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State.

5. We are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Murli Manohar (1991 (1) SCC 377) does cover the point raised in these appeals but it is necessary to add a clarification. Before we do that, it is necessary to state a little background. Earlier to the rendering of the decision in Murli Manohar, a Bench of this Court comprising Sabyasachi Mukharji and Ranganathan, JJ. held in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71, that where the goods manufactured are taken out of Haryana (without effecting a sale) to the branch office or depot of the Manufacturer or to the office or depot of his agent, no purchase tax can be levied under S. 9 of the Act on the raw material purchased within the State and used in the manufacture of such goods. It was held that imposing such tax would amount to levying tax on consignment, which the State Legislature was not competent to do. Section 9, as it then stood, stated expressly that no such purchase tax on raw material was leviable, if the goods manufactured out of such raw material were sold either within the State or were sold in the course of inter-State Trade and Commerce or were sold in the course of export within the meaning of S. 5(l) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Murli Manohar was decided in the light of the law declared in