The judgment of the Court was delivered by

MADON, J. - Four questions have been referred to this Court by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), read with section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. We will advert to these questions later, but at the present it is sufficient to say that the real controversy between the parties is whether the same transactions of inter-State sales which have been assessed to tax and the tax thereon collected by the Central Government through the agency of one State can subsequently be assessed through the agency of another State.

The facts which have given rise to this controversy are that the respondents are a public limited company. Their main place of business is situate in district Khammam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has not been found that they had at any material time a place of business in Bombay or at any other place in the State of Maharashtra. The respondents were registered as a dealer under the Act. They also had got themselves registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as a non-resident dealer with effect from 4th February, 1963. In respect of the period 3rd May, 1963, to 9th November, 1964, the respondents were assessed to Central sales tax by the taxing authorities under the local sales tax law in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh and had paid the tax to the Central Government in the said State.

By his order dated 22nd December, 1968, the Sales Tax Officer, Non-Resident Circle, Bombay, again assessed the respondents to Central sales tax on the very same transactions of inter-State sales which had been assessed and in respect of which the respondents had paid tax in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Sales Tax Officer held that the movement of goods, which were the subject-matter of these transactions, had commenced in the State of Maharashtra and therefore the State of Maharashtra was the appropriate State to assess and collect the amount of tax on these transactions of inter-State sales. He further held that the first of the transactions of inter-State sales effected by the respondents was on 3rd May, 1963, to Bharat Electronics Limited of Bangalore and therefore the respondents had become liable to get themselves registered under the Act. In addition, therefore, to levying Central sales tax the said Sales Tax Officer also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 upon the respondents. The respondents went in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the said order of assessment and levy of penalty. Their appeal in so far as it was against the order of assessment was dismissed, but in so far as it was against the levy of penalty it succeeded. The respondents then went in second appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Central Government had recovered tax on the transactions in question through its agent, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore the State of Maharashtra acting as an agent of the Central Government could not again recover tax in respect of the same transaction.

At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following four questions :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the ground that the Central Government had already collected Central sales tax on the respondents' inter-State sales through its agent, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, and that the Maharashtra State acting as an agent of the Central Government could not again recover the tax in respect of the same transactions of sale ?

(2) Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the clear mandatory provision of section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, which empowers the Government of India to levy and collect the Central sales t