Case: M/S. Raj Shipping &amp; Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through The Government Pleader &amp; Others

3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015 are as under:The Petitioner is registered dealer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the CST Act) for the purpose of discharging its VAT liability and is holding valid TIN 27420008932V/C. The Petitioner has regularly filed its VAT returns for the Financial yearstill date. The Petitioner has duly discharged its tax liability under the MVAT Act and CST Act as per the original returns filed by the Petitioner.4. The Petitioner submits that it has already filed Writ Petition No. 4057 of 2015 in this Court challenging the legality and validity of recovery notices issued by Respondent No. 4 to the bankers and debtors of the petitioner on account of alleged tax liability on sales of motor spirits by the Petitioner during the years5. The Court, vide order dated 21st April, 2015 has directed the parties to maintain status quo.5. Respondent No. 4 has also issued recovery notices in Form 318 dated 17th April, 2015 to Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 for the purpose of recovery of alleged tax liability. Also, subsequent to the above High Court order dated 21st April, 2015, the Petitioner has received assessment order for the periodon 30th April, 2015 which has been claimed to be passed by Respondent No. 4 on 30th March, 2015.6. The Petitioner is engaged in the business which is commonly known as Bunker Supplies. Bunker supplies mainly consist of supply of petroleum products such as High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD), Light Diesel Oil (LDO), and Furnace Oil (FO) to various incoming and outgoing vessels within or beyond the port limits of Mumbai Port.7. The shipping vessel places an enquiry for required quantity of HSD with the Petitioner. Pursuant to the enquiry made by the customer, the Petitioner gives a quote for their supplies. On approval of quote, the shipping vessel places a Purchase order/nomination with the Petitioner for the required quantity and the name of the vessel to which the supplies are to be made.8. On receipt of the purchase order/nomination from the shipping vessel, the Petitioner in turn places a back to back purchase order/nomination of the same quantity on any of the Oil Marketing Companies such as M/s. Indian Oil Company Ltd., M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, etc. to be sold to the vessel nominated in the purchase order. On receipt of the purchase order/nomination by the Oil Marketing Company, the Oil Marketing Company informs their appointed Custom House Agent (CHA) to prepare a shipping bill to effect the supplies. In the shipping bill filed under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, the supply of HSD to the nominated vessel is cleared as Ship Stores as the said HSD is for the consumption by the vessel.9. Once the shipping bill is ready, the Oil Marketing Company loads the required quantity of HSD into tank lorries which then come to the barge loading point at Mallet Bunder along with the invoice copy of the Oil Marketing Company.10. The sister concern of the Petitioner owns self propelled barges having large cargo tanks (below deck) ranking from 40 thousand liters (40KL) to 200 thousand liters (200KL). The barges have pumps fitted on it with a flow meter in order to pump out the HSD to the vessel. These barges are similar to petrol pumps where petrol is sold to the regular customers.11. At the Mallet Bunder, the HSD supplied by the Oil Marketing Company is decanted into the cargo tanks of the barges owned by the Petitioner. The entire activity of decanting is done under the supervision of a Customs Officer.12. After taking delivery of the HSD from the Oil Marketing Company, the barges sail to the anchorage point of the nominated vessel.13. After reaching the anchorage point of the nominated vessel, the HSD is pumped out of the barge into the fuel tank or bunker of the nominated vessel. Once the supply is complete, master or the authorised officer of the vessel acknowledges the receipt of the ordered quantity of HSD on the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) and the shipping bill.14. The barges go beyond 1.5 nautical miles from the base line to deliver the HSD to the vessels anchored therein.15. After the delivery of the HSD to the nominated vessel is complete, the Petitioner raises an invoice on the shipping line, based on the BDN.16. There is no dispute about the fact that the bunker supplies made by the Petitioner to the shipping lines are for their own consumption and use. This is further fortified by the fact that the said bunker supplies are cleared under the Customs Act, 1962 under a bona fide shipping bill for supply of ship stores.17. The Petitioner has regularly filed returns and paid taxes under the MVAT Act and complied with all the provisions of MVAT Act. The Petitioner has discharged the tax liability due under the MVAT Act after claiming available exemptions under the Act read with the notifications issued under the MVAT Act.18. The Respondent No. 1 has issued Notification No.VAT.1506/dated 30.11.2006 in terms of Section 41(4)(b) of the MVAT Act, 2002 exempting the sales of motor spirit made at the retail outlet. Accordingly, the Petitioner has claimed exemption from payment of MVAT on sale of HSD. For the purpose of clarification, it is mentioned that HSD is notified as motor spirit vide Notification1 dated 30.11.2006 for the purpose of Explanation to(4) of Section 41 of the MVAT Act, 2002.19. Hence, while filing the returns, the Petitioner had claimed the turnover of sales pertaining to sale of HSD as exempted turnover and not paid MVAT on the said turnover.20. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Investigation, Mazgaon, Mumbai conducted a search at the registered premises of the Petitioner from 17th December 2014 to 31st December 2014 under Section 64 of the MVAT Act, 2002. The investigation team had seized all the documents and books of account of the Petitioner for a continuous period of 17 days for the purpose of conducting their investigations. This despite the Petitioner cooperating in every manner as to production of details and information.21. During the investigation, the investigating officers alleged that the Petitioner had wrongly claimed the exemption on the sales of HSD under the said Notification and coerced the petitioner to file revised returns for the period from financial yeartill date admitting the additional tax liability. The officers alleged an estimated additional tax liability to the tune of Rs. 23.36 crores on account of VAT on HSD sold by the Petitioner to its various customers. They also imposed interest u/s 30(2) and u/s 30(4) of the MVAT Act, 2002. The investigating officers had alleged that under the MVAT Act, 2002 the sale of HSD made by the Petitioner shall not be covered under the exemption Notification No. VAT.1506/dated 30.11.2006.22. Due to immense coercion by the officers acting under the authority of Respondent Nos. 13 and particularly, by Respondent No. 4, Petitioner further revised their returns on 24th, 25th and 30th December 2014 for the following periods listed below.Sr.No.PeriodDate of RevisionRevised20 (4)0 (4)il 20143. It is to be noted that even in the remarks column of the revised returns filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has categorically mentioned that the said returns are being filed under protest.24. After filing the revised returns, the petitioner once again, vide letter dated 31st December 2014, had made known to the officers that the Petitioner has filed the revised returns under protest and made a payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/under protest to prove their bona fides. Under no circumstances, the Petitioner has accepted the additional liability of tax shown under the revised returns which have been filed under coercion.25. Despite the Petitioner informing the investigation officers that the revised returns have been filed under protest without admitting the alleged additional liability, the Respondent No. 4 issued Notice in Form 213 under Section 20 of the MVAT Act demanding the additional tax liability shown as payable to the State Government in the revised returns filed under protest.26. On closing of the investigation, the Petitioner was further coerced to make up the payment of the balance amount of additional tax liability without passing any assessment order as required under the law. Since the petitioner could not pay the large amount of sums as allegedly determined by the investigation team, the investigating officers issued recovery notice in Form 318 u/s 33(1) of the MVAT Act, 2002 in respect of bank accounts of the petitioner in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Citibank NA. vide order dated 5th February 2015. It is important to note that out of the two Banks accounts, the account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. is a Cash Credit Account (Overdraft Account). However, even after considering the said details, the investigating officer had issued notice in respect of the Overdraft account with Kotak Mahindra Bank.27. Since, the attachments made by the officers were disrupting the day to day business of the Petitioner, the Petitioner met the investigating officers and asked them to lift the attachment. Further, at the insistence of the investigating officers, the Petitioner pleaded for lifting of attachment and asked to give installment system to make payment of the alleged additional tax liability. Subsequent to this the investigating officers revoked the notices of recovery in respect of Kotak Mahindra Bank account of the Petitioner.28. Despite there not being any confirmed assessment order against the Petitioner for the alleged dues, the Petitioner, on 11th February 2015, paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000 and requested the department to release the bank accounts vide their letter dated 11th February 2015. The Department then subsequently released one of the Bank Account of the Petitioner.29. On receipt of the above submission of the Petitioner dated 11th February 2015, the Petitioner received an installment order dated 4th March 2015 to pay the balance, alleged tax dues. Again the Petitioner received the Form 318 for Kotak Mahindra Bank Account for the period AprilSeptember 2014.30. Again the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000 on 10th March 2015 to show its good conduct and cooperation. They also requested to lift the above attachment for Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. The investigating officers then revoked their notice of recovery in respect of Kotak Mahindra Bank Account on 18th March 2015.31. Aggrieved by the attachment of bank accounts, the Petitioner thereafter wrote letters dated 30th March 2015 and 4th April 2015 addressed to Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 3, respectively stating that the moneys collected from the Petitioner were under protest and were to be lawfully refunded to the Petitioner. The Petitioner further demanded that the impugned recovery notices be lifted forthwith. The Petitioner also made detailed submissions as to how it was exempt and not liable for the demand being alleged by Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner also apprised the respondent of the fact that the limitation period for passing an assessment order for the financial years10 had already expired and the latter would be time barred as per law. Therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to the refund, since it has not admitted any liability, as evidenced by its original andreturns.32. The Petitioner has once again received the notice of recovery in Form 318 issued to Citi BankA/c. No. 0840567117 and one its debtors M/s. Bharti Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of alleged tax dues for the period from April, 2011 to September, 2014.33. The Petitioner has further received the copies of notices of recovery in Form 318 dated 17th April 2015 issued to its debtors, namely, M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, M/s Epsom Shipping Private Limited, M/s Essar Offshore Subsea Limited, M/s GOL Offshore Limited and M/s Seven Islands Shipping Limited for the recovery of alleged tax dues for the period from April, 2011 to September, 2014.34. In response to the above allegations and issue of recovery notices by the Respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4057 of 2015 before the Honble High Court of Bombay challenging the legality and validity of the recovery notices issued to the debtors and bankers of the petitioner in order to recover the alleged tax dues as stated above. The petition has been filed on the grounds that first, the recovery notices impugned therein were passed without assessment; second, that the sales of High Speed Diesel are covered under the purview of the abovementioned Notification No. VAT.1506/dated 30.11.2006; third, the sale transactions of the Petitioner are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra.35. Further with respect to the aforementioned Writ Petition, the Honble High Court of Bombay has passed the order dated 21st April 2015 directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 4 served the Petitioners with Assessment Orderfor the periodunder section 23(4) of the MVAT Act which was received by the petitioner on 30 April 2015. The Assessment Order also imposed interest under section 30(3) of the MVAT Act and penalty u/s 29(3) of the MVAT Act, 2002 which has resulted in the tax dues to the tune of Rs.1,27,50,383. The said order has been claimed to be passed by the Respondent No. 4 on 30th March 2015. The same order was served on the petitioner on 30th April 2015.36. In view of the above, the Petitioner is forced and constrained to file the present Writ Petition against the said assessment order dated 30th March 2015 as being arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Court's reasoning:
59. Therefore, in the present case,can only be said to have occurred in the transactions of the Petitioners, when the Petitioners transports the goods to customers location, delivers the required quantity of motor spirit, after weighing of the same by customer. That takes place in the territorial waters, which are outside the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, the goods are not within the State when they are appropriated to the contract of sale under Section 4(2(b)) of the CST Act, 1956.At the cost of repetition, what we find is that the order of assessment refers to the name of the dealer, namely the Petitioner Raj Shipping Agency and also points out as to how assessment proceedings were initiated in order to ensure that in the return furnished by the dealer in respect of the financial yearturnover of sales and purchases are properly admitted. Deductions are correctly claimed, tax has been calculated at the proper rates, set off has been correctly claimed and the deemed tax in respect of the said period has been admitted to be payable and has been paid is the correct position or assertion. If the position is otherwise, then, appropriate corrective action was contemplated.The principal argument of Mr. Sridharan needs to be considered in the light of some of the documents on record. Exhibitis the invoice. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation has raised the invoice and has stated that the consignee is the present Petitioner. The other details and to be found in that invoice as also anotherare that there is a indent which is raised based on which the product high speed diesel and in the quantity mentioned in Kilo Liters has been loaded by IBP, Wadala and Raj Shipping Agency is shown as the customer. Below the same name, the name of vesselis written. The delivery location is IBP Company Limited, Wadala. In the additional affidavit, that is filed, the Petitioner states that it is engaged in the business, namely, Bunker Supplies. Bunker supplies mainly consist of supply of petroleum products such as high speed diesel oil (HSD), light diesel oil (LDO) and furnace oil (FO) to various incoming and outgoing vessels within or beyond the port limits of Mumbai Port. These outgoing vessels, to which the supplies are made, are located beyond approximately 1.55 nautical miles from the coast of Mumbai and are anchored in various anchorage points within the territorial waters of the Union of India, off the coast of Maharashtra. It is stated that the outgoing shipping vessel places an inquiry for the required quantity of HSD with the Petitioner. Pursuant to the inquiry made by the customer, the Petitioner gave a quote for their supplies. In many cases, the Petitioner enters into a formal agreement with their customers for the purchase of HSD. At page 86 of the paper book is one of the illustrative copy of such an agreement.We do not see on what basis can the Petitioner therefore assert that the sales made by the Petitioner are within the territorial waters of India and accordingly not sales liable to tax withinA perusal of these definitions together with the section 1(2) would denote as to how the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act extends to the whole of Maharashtra. It is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the levy and collection of tax on the sale or purchase of certain goods in the State of Maharashtra.88. Therefore, it would not be proper to proceed on any assumptions straightaway. One cannot presume that merely because the tax in this case is sought to be levied, assessed and collected from the Petitioner that it is out of the purview of the MVAT Act. All the sections noted above will have to be read together and harmoniously with other provisions of the MVAT Act to find out as to whether the sale in this case could be said to be within the State of Maharashtra. For the purpose of a decision on this aspect, we would have to also consider as to whether the sale has necessarily taken place within territorial waters as claimed. The assumption on the part of the Petitioner is that the sale has taken place outside the State of Maharashtra and in territorial waters which are international in character.In that regard, we find that there are several steps which form part of the transaction undertaken by the Petitioners. Firstly, the Petitioners themselves are registered as dealers under the MVAT Act. Secondly, there is an indent/order placed on the Petitioners by the shipping lines and which order was placed by email/fax or electronically but at a place of business in Mumbai. This term has a definite legal meaning. It is defined in an inclusive manner. It includes a warehouse, godown or other place where a dealer stores his goods and any place where the dealer keeps his books of accounts. In the instant case, place of business of the Petitioner is Mumbai. He has dealt with the goods in Mumbai and which are defined to mean every kind of movable property. In the present enactment, the term goods as also petroleum products have been defined separately. It is not the case of the Petitioner that these definitions cannot be read together or that petroleum products would not be goods. The term motor spirit is also defined and it would include one of the Petitioners product, namely, high speed diesel [see section 2(15A)] whereas the word Petroleum products is defined in section 2(17)(A) of the MVAT Act. If the Petitioner is a person who for the purposes of its business buys or sells goods in the State, then, it cannot escape the tax. The only question is whether the above business is in the State. The Petitioner cannot and does not dispute that Sales Tax is leviable on the sale of motor spirit, which the goods are in question. In other words, sections 3, 4 and 6 together with its subsections signify the tax on HSD. That the Petitioner in the alternative urges that the sale in this case is outside the State and within the meaning of Chapter II of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and further alternatively pleads that it is exempted from MVAT would denote as to how the levy is understood. It is only the transaction or deal with the shipping lines and undertaken by the Petitioner is claimed as not occurring within the State. That is because the HSD is supplied by barges to the ships or vessels located beyond 1 or 1.5 nautical miles in the high seas that it is urged that so long as the barge carrying the HSD does not reach the vessel, unload the same, obtains a certificate from the Master of the vessel, that there is no sale and in any event all this takes place in the high seas, therefore, it is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra. The further contention is that MVAT Act cannot apply to territorial waters for they are international boundaries and controlled by the Union. This and the earlier submission proceeds on the footing that the sale in this case has no connection or nexus with the State of Maharashtrra, we would understand it that way.91. In this case we find that the high speed diesel, a petroleum product, is the subject matter of the transaction. The petitioner placed an order on the oil companies within the State to supply a fixed quantity of this petroleum product to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to fulfill its contractual obligation. That contractual obligation is of bunker supplies undertaken and in this case with the party M/s. Leighton Contractors (India) Private Limited, an illustrative copy of the agreement and the contents of which we have reproduced hereinabove would show that these orders are placed from a business address at Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. This private limited company addressed the communication reproduced above and awarding the bunker service supply of fuel oil contract on Raj Shipping Agency (the petitioner). The bunker service (supply of fuel oil) is a contract awarded to the petitioner so as to enable M/s. Leighton Contractors in turn to fulfill its commitment to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, particularly in relation to the pipeline replacement projectII. It is in that regard and bearing in mind such contracts that we must find out as to whether the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act would apply. Merely because the high speed diesel oil is carried in barges by the petitioners for being supplied to or discharged into a vessel at high seas would it necessarily mean that the sale was in territorial waters That the sale is in territorial waters and which belongs to the Union is the argument. We find it difficult to accept it and in the given facts and circumstances.92. In that regard, we find that there is ample material in law so as to assume that the MVAT Act will apply or will take within its import such a sale.93. We must at once clarify that the principle which the Courts are required to apply is that every legislation is presumed to be territorial in its operation. The parliament or the State Legislature cannot be presumed to have exceeded their territorial powers. As has been throughout clarified that in the case of sales tax, it is not necessary that the sale or purchase should take place within the territorial limits of the State in the sense that all the ingredients of sale like the agreement to sell, the passing of title, delivery of goods etc. should have a territorial connection. Broadly speaking, local activity of buying or selling carried out in the State in relation to local goods should be sufficient basis to sustain the taxing power of the State, provided of course, such activity ultimately resulted in a concluded sale or purchase to be taxed. This principle has been enunciated in the decision reported in the case of The State of BombayAnr. v. The United Motors (India) LimitedOrs., AIR 1953, SC, 252.If we apply this principle to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not have any hesitation in concluding that it is the goods which have been produced or manufactured or refined by the oil companies and which are drawn from their storage tanks in fixed quantity that are supplied on demand to the Petitioner. The manufacturers as also the refineries are very much within the State of Maharashtra viz. at Mumbai. The Petitioners are at Mumbai. Meaning thereby, their place of business is at Mumbai. It is from that place that the Petitioner requests the oil companies to supply to it the high speed diesel. It is received by the Petitioner from the oil companies at Mumbai. It may be that the Petitioner treats this as a contract on which they paid the sales tax as a component of the price. However, it is that very high speed diesel and supplied to the Petitioner at Mumbai which is carried from Mumbai in furtherance of a contract with parties like M/s. Leighton, which contract is also placed and finalised from Mumbai, through the barges of the Petitioner to the vessels of M/s Leighton and which may be stationed in territorial waters. However, Leighton comes in the picture, as have been stated by them, for the purpose of fulfilling a contractual obligation of M/s. ONGC. It is for that obligation to be discharged that they have deployed the vessels. It is these vessels which require the bunker supplies and which supplies are met by the Petitioner. The subject matter of the contract with M/s. Leighton is this high speed diesel or motor spirit which is taken and carried from Mumbai. Therefore, there is sufficient territorial nexus for the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act to apply and to be invoked to the later sale by the Petitioner of the same goods to M/s. Leighton and other entities similarly placed. We do not see how the Petitioner can escape compliance with this legislation and by contending that the contract of M/s. Leighton being a distinct contract, the sale taking place in territorial waters that the sales tax legislation or the VAT legislation of the Maharashtra State would be applicable. Its applicability has to be tested by applying the above principles and particularly the nexus theory. After having found sufficient territorial connection, namely, between the back to back transaction and the taxing authority that we are not in a position to agree with Mr. Sridharan that MVAT Act is inapplicable.96. Mr. Sridharan has relied upon the principles relating to extension of the States boundaries to the territorial waters. Prior thereto, he has also relied upon section 8 of the MVAT Act but that in our opinion refers to certain transactions to which MVAT Act will not apply and which may fall within the purview of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. It is clear that it refers to section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.97. As far as the State boundaries are concerned, our attention has been invited to several works and commentaries extensively dealing with this aspect. We would not be required to refer to these commentaries, particularly relating to territorial waters by CoulsonForbes, in the view that we have taken. Once we have made a reference to the theory of nexus and which is applicable to Sales Tax legislation as held by the Honble Supreme Court, then, strictly speaking the works and commentaries need not be referred.98. Equally, the principle that the country extends to its low water mark where the high seas begin is another principle which need not be referred in details for the simple reason that it can have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the afore indicated reasons, we have found that the very goods and which have been transported by the Petitioners via barges and to the vessels stationed in the territorial waters according to it have been obtained within the State of Maharashtra. We have found that substantial part of the transaction and from the stage of acquisition of these goods, paying for them, receiving an indent or order from the shipping lines and further communications have all taken place in Mumbai within the State of Maharashtra. It is these very goods, namely, high speed diesel oil which have been filled in and loaded on to the Petitioners barges at Mallet Bunder Mumbai. These are thus the acts within the State of Maharashtra. It is in these circumstances that we have applied this theory and once it is found to be so applicable, then, where the boundaries of the State end and in relation to waters, what could be the limitation thereof are all matters which need not be considered by us. For this reason, we do not make any further reference to the decision of the US Federal Court in United States vs. State of California 1947 (332) US 19 as also the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court reported as 1967 SCR 792. While it may be true that some of these decisions may make a reference to the taxing power of the State but having found that the ambit and scope of taxing power can be interpreted with the aid of nexus theory and that can be invoked that we do not deem it fit and proper to dwell on this aspect any further.99. It is also then not necessary to make a reference to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gramaphone Company Limited vs. Union of India 1984 (2) SCC 534.   We are also not required then to refer to the principles of international law, particularly as to how a State or a country has been identified.100. For the aforesaid reasons, we also need not refer to the Constituent Assembly debates with reference to the territorial waters and Article 297 of the Constitution of India or Article 366(30) of the Indian Constitution.101. For the very same reasons the definition of the term State as appearing in General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Bombay General Clauses Act,1904 also need not bedo not think that we are required to decide any such controversy. Once we have held that the Assessing Officer could have taken note of the Petitioners transaction and probed and investigated it further so as to bring it to tax also by applying the nexus theory, then, this decision need not detainlearned single Judge took the view that the tug in question was in the State of Karnataka, though in territorial waters which forms the territory of the State, the question as to whether there was transfer of right to use the tug being one of fact the same has to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties before the second respondent and the same cannot be considered in the Writ Petition. That is how the Writ Petition was dismissed and the appeal was filed.We are of the considered view that it is not necessary to decide such wider questions as are posed by the Karnataka High Court and answer them. For the purpose of our judgment and having reached our conclusions on the theory of nexus or applying the principle of territorial nexus we do not deem it necessary to answer the larger questions or enter into wider debate. Therefore, we would not pursue the line of reasoning in the Karnataka High Court judgment to consider whether the conclusions reached by the said High Court are to be agreed with or otherwise. We leave such questions as are posed by the Karnataka High Court for being decided in an appropriateno prejudice is being caused by relegating the Petitioners to these remedies. More so, when these remedies are efficacious. Further, these being mixed questions of law and fact and concerning particular sales, the transactions and dealings between parties to the petition as also others that the writ jurisdiction is not the forum to decide or adjudicate such controversy. Therefore, we would not express any opinion on the rival contentions based on the judgments and legal provisions and leave the parties to raise them in the pending proceedings or the proceedings to be initiated and instituted but before the forums under the BST Act, 1959.112. Similarly, with regard to the other contentions of Mr. Sridharan on the goods, namely, the petroleum products in question enjoying an exemption and the Petitioners having satisfied all the pre conditions, they are entitled to such exemptions are concerned, they are also capable of being raised, dealt with and considered in proceedings under the BST Act. While challenging the assessment orders, it would be open for the Petitioners to raise the contentions of applicability of the CST Act and equally in the alternative and without prejudice that assuming those contentions are turned down and the BST Act is applicable and attracted, still the particular goods are exempt from tax. The construction and interpretation of the exemption Notification relied upon is an issue which can always be gone into and decided in the proceedings under the Act. Thus, on both counts, namely, whether jurisdictional facts or pre conditions attracting the levy are satisfied and even if these are satisfied and the levy is attracted, the particular goods are exempt from such levy, the matters can be resolved by the forums under the Act. In the absence of any favourable adjudication, there are always the higher courts available to the Petitioners. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions as far as the exemption Notification is concerned, we would leave the Petitioners to pursue their remedies under the Act.