( 1. ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur, on 1lth March, 1955, assessing the petitioner-firm to sales tax in the sum of Rs. 8,868-12-0 for the period from 1st January, 1952, to 31st December, 1952, the decision dated 22nd February, 1959, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax upholding in appeal the order of the Sales Tax Officer, and the decision dated 30th November, 1962, of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

( 2. ) THE petitioner-firm, which has its head office at Kanpur and a branch in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Mandla, carried on the business of supply of timber. During the course of its business, it entered into a contract with the Director-General of Stores, Supplies and Disposals, Government of India, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Director) for the supply of timber according to the terms of the contract. For the period from 1st January, 1952, to 31st December, 1952, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax in respect of timber booked by rail from Mandla Fort railway station to places outside the State. Before the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee contended that it was not liable to pay sales tax on the timber supplied by virtue of Section 27-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Article 286 of the Constitution, as it stood prior to the amendment made by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956. This objection was overruled by the Sales Tax Officer, who held that on a construction of the terms of the contract concluded between the petitioner-firm and the Director, the property in the goods passed to the buyer in this State and that the Explanation to Article 286 had no applicability inasmuch as the delivery of goods at places outside the State was not as a direct result of the sale for the purpose of consumption outside the State. Accordingly, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the petitioners claim for exclusion from his turnover the sale transactions of supply of timber according to the contract. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur, agreed with the view taken by the Sales Tax Officer. On an examination of the terms of the contract between the petitioner and the Director, the Commissioner of Sales Tax also affirmed the view that title in the goods passed within Madhya Pradesh and the sales were also completed there and the delivery of goods was also within the State of Madhya Pradesh and that "the subsequent movement of goods to places outside the State is for the better enjoyment of what had been earlier acquired. "

( 3. ) THE petitioner contests his liability to tax on the same grounds which were urged before the taxing authorities. It is contended that according to the contract between the petitioner and the Director, timber was sent to purchasers for consumption outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and was actually delivered as a direct result of the sale for the purpose of consumption in the States of the purchasers ; that property in the goods, therefore, passed in the respective States of the consignees under Explanation to Article 286 (1) of the Constitution; and that consequently the State of Madhya Pradesh had no right to tax the sales. It was also urged that as the sales took place outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, they were covered by Section 27-A (1) (a) of the Act and not liable to tax.

( 4. ) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the petition, it has been stated with detailed reference to the terms of the contract between the petitioner and the Director that those terms indicated that the property in goods passed to the buyer within the State of Madhya Pradesh; that the goods were delivered in this State and not in States outside the State of Madhya Pradesh as a direct result of the