Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As the issue involved in both these S.T. Revisions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common order.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these Revision Petitions are as follows:

The petitioner in both the Revision Petitions is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered Office at Mumbai and branches in various States including one at Ernakulam, Kerala. It is a manufacturer cum dealer of medical equipments, electronic and electric items etc. and also undertakes the execution of works contract for various clients. It is also a dealer registered as such under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as the “KGST Act”] and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the “CST Act”]. During the assessment years 2000-01 and 2004-05, it had taken up works contracts for KINFRA and had accordingly entered into contract with the said company for the construction of a 110KV Sub Station. The tender documents & :: 4 :: S.T.REV.NO.13 OF 2018 comprised of general conditions of contract, special conditions of contract and the formal contract agreement, and the terms and conditions therein specified the items that had to be supplied by the petitioner for the purposes of incorporation into the works contract that was undertaken by it for KINFRA. The terms of the contract made it clear that while the technical specifications and the make of the individual items/component parts as specified therein had to be adhered to by the petitioner while affecting the supply of the said parts, a choice was left to the petitioner to source the parts either from within the State or from outside the State.

3. It would appear that in respect of those parts that were sourced by the petitioner from within Kerala, the petitioner discharged his liability to sales tax under the KGST Act while incorporating the said parts in the works contract. For the items sourced from outside the State, either from sub- vendors of the petitioner or from the petitioner's own manufacturing units, and incorporated in the works contract in Kerala, the petitioner claimed exemption from tax under the KGST Act by contending that the said supplies would have to be treated as deemed inter-state sale of goods in the course of execution of works contract.

4. The claim for exemption was not accepted by the Assessing Authority, who, for the assessment year 2000-01, found that the petitioner & :: 5 :: S.T.REV.NO.13 OF 2018 had not even discharged the tax liability under the CST Act in respect of purchases effected from sub-vendors from whom it had procured the parts after issuing C Forms. Although the petitioner pointed out that the CST Act had not been amended to make provision for taxation of deemed inter-state sales, the Assessing Authority was of the view that the incorporation of the goods sourced from outside the State, in the works contract in Kerala, would necessarily attract tax under the KGST Act.

5. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeals before the First Appellate Authority and also the Appellate Tribunal, but the said appeals were dismissed. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through the S.T. Revisions aforementioned, wherein the main question of law raised is with regard to the liability to pay tax under the KGST Act on the value of the goods supplied inter-state for execution of the works contract in Kerala.

6. We have heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions and Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent Department.

7. On a consideration o