ORDER :

1. Having heard the submissions of both the parties we are of the opinion that in this matter in view of the principles settled by the decision of 2 this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., reported in Sales Tax Cases Vol. 60 1985 Page 301 this case does not require interference under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The principles upon which transactions of these types should be decided have been laid down in the aforesaid decision -and other decisions of this Court. In the premises, this Writ Petition under Article 32, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where factual questions are involved, is dismissed.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and for the balance of convenience of both the parties and in consonance with the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 938/87 (with CMP No. 17591/87) dated 14.12.1987 and also in consonance with the principles settled by the decision of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Anr. (supra) we direct as follows :

(1) 50 per cent of the payment in respect of the year 1985-86 shall be paid within 3 months from today failing which, as directed, orders of interim stay shall stand vacated.

(2) The balance shall not be collected until the question involved in this case whether the transactions are inter-State or intra-State is decided finally on factual determination.

(3) Having regard to the averments made we direct that the Appellate Authority will afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to collect C Forms and furnish them to the appropriate authority before finally determining the assessment if they are so entitled to in consonance with the principles laid down in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Anr. (supra).

(4) Upon the determination of the factual position the petitioners will be at liberty to apply to the appropriate authorities in the respective States for refund of the tax provided it is refundable and if such application is made such application will be considered without any question of limitation.

(5) Without making any observations in the facts of this case we direct that the appeal pending may be heard by any other Appellate Assistant Commissioner other than the person who has filed the counter affidavit in the proceedings before us.