J.N.Bhatt, J.

1. By this writ petition, by invocation of the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Indian Oil Corporation (In short "IOC"), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 , and as such, a Central Government undertaking, has knocked the doors of justice on account of alleged illegal imposition of tax by an assessment order, dated, 14.4.1999, which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority, by order dated 12.5.2000, as well as, by an order in a revision, dated 4.3.2005 (unsuccessful petitioner at three stages), raising the following points in focus:

Whether the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna, confirming the imposition of levy of sales tax on the export sale made by the petitioner to Nepal, is required to be intercepted or Injected by an interlocutory order, until disposal of the petition on full fledged hearing on merits being unauthoised, illegal and without sanction of law?

2. With a view to appreciate the sole controversy, at this juncture, whether the interlocutory relief staying the operation of the assessment order, confirmed by the appellate authority and later on, by Tribunal is justified or not can be evaluated in the light of factual profile and relevant legal settings applicable to such relief.

3. For that purpose, obviously, the Court has to address itself to three celebrated principles governing the grant or refusal of the interlocutory relief, namely, (a) Prima Facie case, (b) balance of convenience or comparative mischief, and (c) irreparable loss or injury.

4. We have been addressed, at marathon length, by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as, by the learned Advocate General for the respondent State. In course of their submissions, we have been taken through the entire relevant material documentary evidence from which following aspects and proposition have emerged, indisputably:

(i) That the petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), a Government of India undertaking dealing in petroleum product had entered into an agreement with Nepal Oil Corporation Limited, Kathmandu, Nepal (NOC);

(ii) That an agreement was made on 27th June, 1995, between the petitioner IOC and NOC.

(iii) That the agreement came into force by virtue of the terms of the agreement on 1.7.1995 which was to remain in force for a spell of five years. By virtue of this agreement the IOC agreed to sell petroleum products to NOC by export.

5. In this context, let it be stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (.2) of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 , the Central Government permitted export of petroleum products to NOC in Bond formula without payment of duty of excise from stocks of IOC licensed as a warehouse in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapters VII and VIII of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

6. Pursuant to the said agreement, the IOC sold petroleum products by export to the NOC. As such, there has been, also, a treaty between the two nations, Nepal and India. The IOC, pursuant to the notification for export of the petroleum oil and lubricant products to Nepal, continued to sell the petroleum products by export. In terms of the agreement, a procedure has been prescribed in the export - sale of oil products, for the year 1995-96. The Sales Tax Officer, placing reliance under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 made an assessment order levying sales tax on export sales of oil product by IOC to NOC which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority, as well as, the revisional authority, as stated hereinabove.

7. We have threadbare and dispassionately evaluated Prima Facie the impugned order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal confirming the order of assessment, as well as, the order of the appellate authority. The content and colour, text and tenor, as well as, the grounds of the ultimate conclusion of imposition of levy of sales tax on export sale of oil products by IOC to NOC are also