The taxing event under Section 9(1) of the Haryana Act and Section 4-B of the Punjab Act was the purchase of the goods and not the act of user or consumption of such goods or despatching of goods outside the State in manner other than sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.

D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. Civil Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 when came up for final hearing before Punchhi, J., was referred for the decision by a larger Bench vide order dated 6th December, 1983. In this petition vires of Section 4-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) were under challenge. The learned Judge referred the matter for the decision by a larger Bench because he thought that Division Bench decision in Bata India Limited v. State of Haryana [1983] 54 STC 226 had taken a view contrary to the Full Bench decision in Sterling Steels & Wires Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1980] 45 STC 438 (FB). In the wake of this reference order to the larger Bench, a number of petitions from Haryana in which the vires of amendments to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act) of Sections 9, 24 and the notification issued under Section 15 were under challenge too were admitted by the motion Bench to be heard along with C. W. P. No. 4462 of 1978. Thus writ petitions from Haryana, namely, C. W. P. Nos. 698 to 708, 3318, 3.319,1371, 1292, 2364, 1397, 733, 1364, 2405, 2514, 2506, 1486, 1329, 1485, 1441, 1484, 3402, 3355, 1615, 3186, 1309, 3049 and 1123 of 1984 have come to be placed before the Full Bench.

2. The question that primarily falls for determination pertains to the vires of Section 4-B of the Punjab Act and Section 9(1) of the Haryana Act [hereinafter referred to as Section 4-B and Section 9(1)]. Since Section 4-B and Section 9 in substance are pari materia and were intended to levy purchase tax on goods which were exigible to tax under the two Acts respectively and were meant to be used by the purchaser for* a given purpose but came to be dealt with by such purchasers otherwise and thus the question of law requiring consideration being indentical to all the writ petitions, a common judgment is proposed. However, wherever, a reference to facts would become necessary, the same would be taken so far as the Punjab case is concerned from C. W. P. No. 4462 of 1978 and in regard to Haryana case from C. W. P. No. 698 of 1984.

3. Messrs. Des Raj Pushap Kumar Gulati, petitioner-firm in Civil Writ No. 4462 of 1978, was a registered dealer under the Punjab Act, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The firm had a branch office within the territory of Himachal Pradesh which too was duly registered under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1975-76, the Assessing Authority while framing assessment under the Punjab Act observed that transactions worth Rs. 4,88,949.27 were branch transfers from the Punjab branch to the Himachal Pradesh branch and were thus liable to tax under Section 4-B of the Punjab Act. Accordingly, these transactions were reckoned towards computation of tax due and the petitioner-firm was made liable. The petitioner-firm impugned the said assessment in this Court and also the vires of Section 4-B of the Punjab Act.

4. The petitions from Haryana State challenging the vires of amendments effected in Sections 9 and 24 of the Haryana Act by Act No. 11 of 1984, as would be presently referred to, too banked upon the ratio of Bata India Limiteds case [1983] 54 STC 226.

5. On behalf of the assessee-petitioners this decision has been held out to be a clincher whereas on behalf of the Revenue, it has been forcefully canvassed that this decision does not lay down the correct law. The petitioners having not advanced any fresh argument to challenge the vires of the given provisions of the two Acts, so the question primarily resolves into the one of judging of the correctness of the law laid down in Bata India Limiteds case [1983] 54 STC 226 by the Division Bench of this Court.

6. Before coming to grips with the propositions canvassed in Bata India Limiteds case [1983] 54 STC 226 and the answer indicated by the Division Bench, it would be necessary to recapitulate a bit of legislative evolution of the two st