The movement of goods from one State to another is a key factor in determining the tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act for works contracts.

( 1 ) THESE revision petitions are filed against the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellate tribunal in the appeals filed by the assessee and the cross-appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 under Section 12a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ("the kst Act", for short) and for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 under Section 12 (3) of the Act and also the levy of penalty for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 under Section 12-A (1-A) of the Act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated for the purposes of these revision petitions, the facts are : the respondent is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and installation of lifts and elevators. The respondent-company has branches all over the country. It has its manufacturing unit for lifts and elevators at Ghaziabad, U. P. The respondent-company at Bangalore undertakes designing, manufacture, erection and commissioning of lifts and elevators according to the requirements of individual customer. The registered office at Bangalore procures orders from customers in Karnataka towards supply, erection and commissioning of lifts and elevators, but the manufacturing of these lifts and elevators are undertaken at its factory in Ghaziabad, U. P. The designing and construction of lifts is as per the requirement of each specific customer. Lifts and elevators so manufactured are later stock transferred in parts and received by the regional office at the customers' premises. The final erection and commissioning of lifts and elevators takes place in the premises of the customers in the State of Karnataka.

( 3 ) THE assessing authority for the assessment years namely, 1990-91 and 1991-92 had completed the assessments originally under Section 17 (6) of the Act by accepting the returns filed by the respondent-company by its order dated July 11, 1992. After receipt of the report from the Intelligence Wing of the Department, wherein it was reported that there existed a large quantity of turnover which was exigible to tax, but which had not been declared in the turnover of the assessee, the assessing authority has re-opened the completed assessments for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and has passed reassessment orders under Section 12a of the Act and also has levied penalty under Section 12-A (1-A) of the Act. The assessing authority for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, after rejecting the returns filed by the assessee has completed the best judgment assessments under Section 12 (3) of the Act read with rule 18 (1) of the Rules.

( 4 ) THE assessee aggrieved by the orders of reassessment and levy of penalty for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and the assessment orders passed under Section 12 (3) of the Act for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, had filed five separate appeals before the joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, in No. KST. AP. 94/99-2000, kst. AP. 20, 21, 22 and 23/2000-2001. The appellate authority by its common order dated december 26, 2000 has rejected all the appeals and has confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years in question.

( 5 ) THE respondent-company thereafter had filed appeal in S. T. A. No. 971 of 1998 before the karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short) against the appeal orders passed by the first appellate authority for the assessment year 1992-93, wherein the appellate authority had confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority by his order dated October 7, 1997 under section 12 (3) of the Act and the levy of penalty under Section 12 (4) of the Act. The assessee-company has also filed appeals before the Tribunal against the common order passed by the first appellate authority for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 in S. T. A. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of 2001. The State also had filed cross-appeal before the Trib