judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, J.

(1) THE question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent herein M/s. Kasturi Lal Har Lal is liable to the State of Uttar Pradesh for payment of the central sales tax in respect of the transactions of sale of coal. The Sales Tax Officer in this case passed an order making the respondent liable for the payment of tax on certain transactions during the period from October 1, 196 5/03/1966 amounting to Rs. 9,08,548.81 and tax liability was imposed at the rate of 2 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 18,170.98. The Sales Tax Officer found that the assessee carried on business in coal. The Sales Tax Officer noted that the bilties (R/Rs), concerning this kind of sale of coal had been prepared in the name of the dealer. The dealer endorsed these bilties (R/Rs) and gave these to the diverse parties in U. P. The parties in U. P. on receiving these bilties got the goods released. The dealer admitted that the bilties (R/Rs) having been endorsed to the parties in U. P. were given to them at the time, while the goods were in the state of movement between Bihar and U. P. The bills connected with bilties (R/Rs) of this kind had also been prepared by the dealer and the money had been realised by the dealer from the purchasing parties. The Sales Tax Officer was of the view that the sale of coal effected in that manner came under inter-State sale and as such was liable under S. 3(b) of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by transfer of document when the goods were in movement. It was the case of the dealer that the goods had been sold to an unregistered dealer and he too was not a registered dealer for the year 1965-66. Therefore, there was no question of imposition of any sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer did not agree with this view and imposed liability for the said Rs. 18,170.98. Challenging the said imposition an application was moved before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution by the dealer. The application was allowed and the order of assessment was set aside.

(2) THE High court having considered the facts and circumstances of this case noted that the main contention raised on behalf of the assessee was that inasmuch as the movement of the goods had started from the State of Bihar, the tax if any, payable on such sales, was assessable in Bihar and the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow had no jurisdiction to make the order of assessment. The High court in the light of S. 9(1 of the central Sales Tax Act was of the view that the "appropriate State" would be the Sales Tax Officer in Bihar and as such the imposition was not possible in the manner it was done. The assessee succeeded before the High court on this ground. The question for determination is whether that is so?

(3) , The High court noted that in the previous case of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. SALES TAX OFFICER the High court had taken the same view on more or less identical facts on 24/07/1970. We were told at the Bar that in the said matter leave had been granted under Article 136 of the Constitution by this court. We wanted to know whether the matter had been disposed of by this court and if so what was the fate of the same and had adjourned this appeal on this account. Neither the assessee nor the revenue has been able to enlighten us on this point.

(4) UNDER the central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), S. 2(a) stipulates that the "appropriate State" means (i) in relation to a dealer who has one or more places of business situate in the same State, that State ; (ii) in relation to a dealer who has places of business situate in different States, every such State with respect to the place or places of business situate within its territory. On the other hand clause (b) of S. 2 defines "dealer" to mean any person who carries on (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of buying and selling, in the manner indicated in sub-clause (b). It is not confined to a regist