( 1. ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 120 of 1969.

( 2. ) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner calls into question the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 30th September, 1968, and 1st January, 1969, for the account years 1954-55 and 1955-56 respectively. The period covered in each year is from 1st August to 31st July.

( 3. ) THE petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. It has its factories in various States in India. One such factory is at Kymore in Madhya Pradesh. In these petitions we are concerned only with the sales made by the Kymore factory. The petitioner- company is a registered dealer under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. According to the assessment orders, the petitioner, for the year 1954-55, claimed that its turnover to the extent of Rs. 13,03,041. 44 was in respect of sales which took place outside the State and this turnover was not taxable by the State of Madhya Pradesh in view of Article 286 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it stood prior to the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956. Similar exemption was claimed for the year 1955-56 in respect of a turnover amounting to Rs. 20,04,025. 47. Another exemption that was claimed for both these years was in respect of sales made to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. It was claimed by the petitioner that sale of cement to the extent of Rs. 10,206. 25 for the year 1954-55 and to the extent of Rs. 3,11,973. 62 for the year 1955-56 was made to the Board under certificates which showed that the cement was used for generation and distribution of electrical energy and was exempt from tax under Section 2 (j) (a) (iii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Both these contentions were not accepted by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner.

( 4. ) THE manner in which the alleged outside sales took place is pleaded in paragraphs (2) to (6) of the petitions which are admitted in the return filed on behalf of the respondents. The mode or the manner of these sales is thus now not disputed. During the entire period falling within the two assessment orders cement was a controlled commodity. Any person wishing to purchase cement had to secure an authorisation in a standard form from the Cement Advisor, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The authorisation directed the selling agents of the petitioner-company, namely, M/s, Cement Marketing Company of India, to sell to the named purchaser the quantity of cement mentioned in the authorisation from the factory specified therein. One of the conditions attached to the authorisation was that the full quantity of the cement released was to be used only for the purpose and at the place stated in the authorisation and no part of it was to be used for any other place or given or sold to any other party. Having received the authorisation, the purchaser placed an order with the selling agents (C. M. I.) stating the requirement, the place where the commodity was to be sent, the manner of transport, etc. A specimen of such an order is annexure b. The instructions which the purchaser gave in this order, apart from other matters, referred to the place of delivery being "f. O. R. works siding" and place of destination as the railway station to which the goods were to be despatched by the petitioner from its works siding. On receipt of the order the selling agents entered into a contract with the purchaser in a standard form. The terms and conditions of this contract are contained in annexure c which are as follows :

1. Despatches against the order will be made subject to cement and wagons being available and we do not hold ourselves responsible either for any delay in despatch due to any reason or for non-receipt of consignment or for any loss, damage or shortage in transit. Our responsibilty ceases once the goods are delivered to the carriers. 2