WP(C) 5487/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY The petitioner had purchased some equipment from M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited by an agreement dated 4.5.1995. This agreement was entered into by the parties in Madras (now Chennai). On the very next date, that is, on 5.5.1995, the petitione r leased out the same equipment to M/s Sanghi Textiles Limited by an operating l ease agreement again entered into in Madras (now Chennai). 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer in the State of Assam and for the relevant assessment year, that is, 1995-96, the petitioner filed a return showin g NIL turn over. This was not accepted by the Assessing Officer under the Assam General Sales Tax Act and accordingly, he passed an order dated 26.3.1999 requir ing the petitioner to pay sales tax on the transaction entered into on 5.5.1995. The assessment order dated 26.3.1999 was followed by a demand notice dated 1.6 .1999/3.6.1999. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Appellate Authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals). The petitioner placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of t he Supreme Court in 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited vs. State of Mahara shtra, 2000 (119) STC 182. The contention of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that the transaction was not a sale entered into the State of Ass am and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy sales tax on the transaction. The contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Co mmissioner of Taxes (Appeals) by his order dated 31.3.2001. The Appellate Author ity took the view that the transaction entered into between the petitioner and M /s. Sanghi Textiles Limited was nothing but an operating lease which was taxable under the Assam General Sales Tax Act. He also held that the decision of the Su preme Court was not applicable because it was not in the context of the Assam Ge neral Sales Tax Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, the Commercial Tax Officer in Chennai issued a no tice to the petitioner on 14.2.2001 seeking to levy sales tax on the transaction entered into between the petitioner and M/s Sanghi Textiles Limited. The petiti oner was therefore placed in a situation where on the one hand it was held by th e Appellate Authority that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax in respect of the operating lease agreement with M/s Sanghi Textiles Limited on 5.5.1995 a nd on the other hand the petitioner was served with a notice by the Commercial S ales Tax Officer in Chennai seeking to levy sales tax on the very same transacti on in the State of Tamil Nadu. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No.489 of 2001 befo re the Supreme Court in which learned counsel for the petitioner is said to have brought out the issue of double taxation. The Constitution Bench of the Suprem e Court passed an order dated 10.8.2010 in which it was directed that the Assess ing Officer in Chennai will pass an assessment order on the return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-1990 to 1999-2000. It appears from this that the assessment year, that is, 1995-1996 with which we are concerned is cove red by the direction issued by the Supreme Court in WP(C) No.489 of 2001. 7. In view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, learned counsel for th e Sales Tax Department very frankly states that sales tax both in the State of T amil Nadu as well as the State of Assam cannot be imposed on the transaction ent ered into between the petitioner and M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited on 5.5.1995. I n view of the direction passed by the Supreme Court in WP(C) No.489/2001, the as sessing authorities in the State of Assam would not have jurisdiction in the mat ter and the assessment in respect of the transaction entered into by the petitio ner and M/s Sanghi Textiles Limited on 5.5.1995 is liable to tax in the State of Tamil Nadu. He says that the proceedings against the petitioner initiated vide assessment order dated 26.3.1999 and the appellate authority’s order dated 21.3. 2001 should be treated as withdrawn. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, w e need not go into the question on merits namely whether the State of Assam had the jurisdiction to levy sales tax on the transaction entered into between the p etitioner and M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited on 5.5.1995. Suffice it to say, accor ding to learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner would ful ly covered by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in 20th Centu ry Finance Corporation Limited. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for the Sales Tax Department that the pro ceedings against the petitioner in respect of the transaction dated 5.5.1995 wit h M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited is deemed to be withdrawn.