IMPORTANT POINT
High Court, under Article 226 should refrain from deciding questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted. Since we intend to direct the appellant assessees in these matters to subject themselves for appropriate adjudication before the assessing authority, we have taken up these appeals for early hearing.

2. The appellants are dealers, registered both under the provisions of the I Madhya Pradesh Commercial Taxes Act/VAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). They have also been registered as the exporters of tendu leaves (tendu pattas) and bamboos. Some of the asses sees are dealers in tendu leaves and some of them are dealers in bamboo.

3. The Madhya Pradesh State Minor Forest Product (Trading and Development) Cooperative Federation Ltd. ("the Federation", for short) had initiated the tender process for sale of tendu leaves and the bamboos, which are minor forest produce. One of the conditions that was stipulated in the tender documents was that the highest bidder whose bid is accepted, has to remit the taxes under the VAT Act to the State Government.

4. The appellants herein are successful bidders. Immediately after their tender documents were accepted, the appellants had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Revenue to treat the sales, made by the Federation in favour of the appellants, as purely inter-State sale and, therefore, not exigible for the levy of tax under the VAT Act. They had also sought for incidental and ancillary prayers in the writ petition.

5. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, merely relying upon certain clauses in the tender documents, has proceeded to hold that the purchase of tendu leaves and bamboos by the appellants is pursuant to the tender process initiated by the Federation and in view of a particular clause in the tender documents, the assessees are liable for payment of tax under the VAT Act. The reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court is flawed by the appellants in these civil appeals.

6. We have heard Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and other learned counsel appearing for the other appellants in these appeals and also Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and other learned counsel appearing for the authorities under the VAT Act.

7. At the outset, we intend to note that in these types of cases, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. We say so for the reason, that, whether a sale originating in a State is an inter-State sale or not is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the authorities under the Act, since it involves the application of the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 6 and 9 (1) of the Act to the facts established and hence, it will be a mixed question of law and fact. The facts are required to be brought to the notice of the assessing authority by the appellants and it is for the assessing authority to come to a conclusion, based on those facts whether a particular transaction is intra-State sales which is exigible to the taxes under the VAT Act or inter-State sales, as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act read with Section 6 of the charging provisions therein. It is after 'such adjudication, the matter can travel from one stage to the other as provided under the Act.

8. In the instant case, as we have already stated, the relevant facts were not before the Court nor the finding of the assessing authority to decide whether the transactions in question are intra-State sales or inter-State which are exigible to taxes under the VAT Act or taxes under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.

9. Merely based on certain clauses in the agreement, in our opinion, the High Court ought not to have decided and declared that the transactions in question would be purely and simply intra-State sales and not inte