I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Respondent No. 1, namely, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise, is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Corporation"). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are employees of respondent No. 1. The respondent-Corporation has been publishing, from time to time, tender notices inviting tender for hiring various types of vehicles, for instance, cranes, water tankers, trailers, etc. As per these tender notices, the respondent-Corporation offers fixed monthly charges for the vehicles for twenty-six days in a month as the working days with fixed running charges per kilometre, the normal running of the vehicles being twelve hour per day. Pursuant to the tender notices so floated, a contract was entered into between respondent No. 7, on the one hand, and the petitioner, on the other, for hiring of cranes. The petitioner claims that he was verbally informed by the officials of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner's contract with the respondent-Corporation would be treated as "sale" within the meaning of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and that deduction from the petitioner's bills would be made treating the said transactions as "sale", though the said transactions, according to the petitioner, amounted to providing of service or, at best, hiring of vehicles. These transactions, according to the petitioner, do not, at any rate, amount to transfer of right to use the petitioner's cranes and, hence, the decision of the respondent-Corporation to deduct, at source, tax at the behest of respondent No. 4, namely, State Sales Tax Authorities in Assam, is wholly without jurisdiction. By making, therefore, this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for directions to the respondents not to deduct, at source, any tax, from the bills of the petitioner under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in respect of the cranes, which form the subject-matter of contract between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation.

2. I have heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel, for respondent No. 4, namely, the State of Assam.

3. There is no dispute that the power of the State Legislature to impose tax on sale and purchase of goods emanates from entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India nor is there any dispute that the 46th Amendment of the Constitution, which inserted Clause (29A) in Article 366 of the Constitution of India, has expanded the definition of "tax on sale or purchase of goods" inasmuch as it has included, within the definition of "sale", the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose, whether or not for a specified period, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. There is also no dispute that pursuant to the changes so introduced, amendments have been made by the Legislature, in the State of Assam, in the provisions of the Act, particularly, Section 2(33) and 2(19) thereof, which embody the definition of "sale" and "lease", respectively.

4. In order to correctly appreciate the development of law relating to the expansion of the State's power to impose sales tax, by bringing the 46th Amendment, it is imperative that the material facts, which led to the bringing of the changes in the definition of "sale" for the purpose of enabling the States to impose sales tax, are taken note of.

5. Before introduction of the 46th Amendment of the Constitution of India, composite contracts, such as, works contract, hire-purchase contract, catering contracts, etc., were not assessable as contracts for sale of goods inasmuch as the contracts, which were indivisible, could not have become subject to sales tax.

6. Before the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act,