SRINIVASAN, J.

In T.C. No. 151 of 1959, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is the petitioner. The turnover in dispute relates to a sum of Rs. 53, 874-4-0 relevant to the assessment year 1955-56. In T.C. No. 23 of 1960 also the Deputy Commissioner is the petitioner and the disputed turnover is a sum of Rs. 1, 04, 296-7-0 relevant to the assessment year 1956-57. In both these cases, the assessee is Messrs Caltex India Ltd., and the turnovers represent sales of customs bonded stocks of bunker or fuel oil.

In T.C. No. 160 of 1959, the State is the petitioner and the assessee is Messrs Burmah Shell. The assessment relates to the year 1952-53 and the turnover of Rs. 4, 35, 381 in dispute is in respect of furnace oil sold by the assessee to ocean-going vessels out of customs bonded stocks.

It will be seen accordingly that in three cases the State is the petitioner, and the dispute relates to the assessability of transactions of sale of fuel oil sold to ocean-going vessels out of what is technically known as customs bonded stocks. In these cases, the Tribunal held that the goods had not crossed the customs frontier in the course of their import into the country, that they had not merged with the general mass of goods of the country and were consequently still in the stream of import. In this view, the Tribunal held that the sales were in the course of import and that the State was incompetent to assess such sales to tax.

In these cases, a common question arises. The following facts are not in dispute. The assessees imported bunker, fuel or furnace oil and kept it in the customs bonded warehouses. It was from such stocks-that deliveries were made to the ocean-going vessels in pursuance of the sale contracts. The contention of the assessees is that so long as the customs duty had not been paid on the goods imported and these goods were kept in customs bonded warehouses, they cannot be deemed to have merged in the general mass of the goods of this country and that therefore the goods must be deemed to be still in the course of import into the country. If that is so, it is urged, the sale of those goods would be sales in the course of import which would not be taxable by reason of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. On the other hand, learned counsel for the department argues that in view of the definition of the customs frontier under the Sea Customs Act, the moment the goods cross the frontier as defined under the Act, it must be held that the course of import had been completed, whether or not the duty of customs had been levied or collected.It seems to us that neither of these contentions can be accepted. We have to determine firstly in order to meet the claim of the assessees whether the goods were still in the course of import into the country and when the course of import terminated. We shall deal with the department's contention later. We have to examine the provisions of the Sea Customs Act in order to understand what the course of import in the country signifies. Chapter IX of the Act deals with the "discharge of cargo and entry inwards of goods". Sections 81 and 82 provide that only such goods as are entered in the manifest of the vessel are permitted to be discharged in the customs port. The owner of the goods is required under section 86 of the Act to present a bill of entry to the Customs Collector and make entry of the goods for home consumption or warehousing. Under section 87, on the delivery of such a bill "the duty leviable on the goods shall be assessed" and the owner may thereafter proceed to clear the goods either for home consumption or for warehousing. If the owner does not take the steps indicated above within four months from the date of the entry of the vessel, the Collector is authorised by section 88 to sell the goods in public auction and apply the proceeds towards the payment of freight and other charges and the duty that would be leviable on such goods if they had been cleared for home c