Summarize the following court judgment. on (c) Nos. 9835 38 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) WITH W.P.(C)Nos.7468 7469/81	3838 39/83	5398/85	5435/85	386/84	 1489/ 86	 12691/85	 489 90/83	 81/83	 68/86 & 1065/87 Lakshmi Chandra Goyal	 B.B. Sahni and Serve Mitter for the Petitioners D.P. Gupta	 Solicitor General	 Ms. Indu Malhotra	 Ms. Aysha Khatri	 Ms. V. Mohana and Ms. Nisha Bagchi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY J. A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. We may take the facts in writ petition (C) No. 9835 of 1983 filed by M/s K. B. Handicrafts Emporium & Ors.	 as representative of the facts in all the cases. The petitioners are firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of handicrafts items. They are registered Sales Tax Dealers in the State of Haryana. They purchased raw material within the State against declaration forms ST 15 prescribed under Rule 21 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules read with Section 24 of the Act. By issuing Form ST. 15	 the petitioners undertook that the goods manufactured by them out of the said raw material would be sold by them either within the State or in the course of inter state trade and commerce or in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A dealer issuing the said Form need not pay the purchase tax on such raw material. After manufacturing the items of handicrafts	 the petitioners say	 they sold them to dealers in Delhi who	 in turn	 exported them out of India. At the time of sale of handicrafts to Delhi dealers	 the Delhi dealers issued Form H	 prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Rules which means that the goods purchased were meant for export. Neither party paid tax on the said sale/purchase. 457 For the assessment years in question	 the Sales Tax Authorities of Haryana levied purchase tax on the purchase of raw material made by the petitioner	 following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s. Murli. Manohar and Company Panipat & Ors. V. State of Haryana & 0rs. (Civil Writ.	 Petition No. 1227 of 1980)	 under section 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax. Act	 1973. However	 the assessing authority computed the tax with reference to the purchase value of the goods exported against Form H. The petitioners. did not choose to file an appeal but directly approached this Court by way of this writ petition on the ground that in view of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana. Hig h Court in Murli Manohar there was no point in their pursuing the remedies under the Act in that State. Appeals were preferred in this court against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murli manohar which have been disposed of by this Court on October 25	 1990 (reported in ; This. Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. When these writ petitions came up for hearing	 it was	 urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the decision of this Court in Murli Manohar the writ petitions must be allowed stria ghtway. This was demurred to by the learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent State. We are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Murli Manohardoes cover the point raised in these appeals but it is necesary to add a clarification. Before we do that	 it is necessary to state a little background. Earlier to the. rendering of the decision in Murli Manohar	 a Bench of this. Court comparising Sabyasachi Mukharji and Ranganathan	 JJ. held in Good year India Ltd. and Ors. vs State ofHaryana and Anr. [1990] 2 S.C.C.71 that where the goods manufactured are taken out of Haryana (without effecting a sale) to the branch office or depot of the Manufacturer or to the office or depot of his agent	 no purchase tax can be levied under section 9 of the Act on the raw material purchased within the State and used in the manufacture of such goods. It was held that imposing such ta would amount to levying tax on consignment	 which the State Legislature was not ' competent to do. Section 9 as it then stood	 stated expressly that no such purchase tax on raw material was leviable	 if the goods manufactured out of such raw material were sold either within the State or were sold in the course of inter state Trade and Commerce or were sold in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. MurliManohar was decided in the light. of the law declared	in Goodyear. Later	 However	 a Bench of three. Judges comprising S.Ran anathan	 vs Ramaswami	 JJ. and one of us(B.P.Jeevan Reddy	 J.) held that. Goodyear does not lay down the correct law vide Hotel Balaji and 458 Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. etc. JT It was held in Hotel Balaji that having regard to the scheme of and the objective underlying section 9 it was competent for the State Legislature to levy purchase tax on raw material purchased within the State where the goods manufactured out of such raw material are taken out of the State (without effecting a sale within the State or otherwise than by way of aninter state sale or by way of an export sale within 'the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act). It was held that such a tax does not amount to consignment tax. It is this decision in Balaji that calls for a certain clarification of the principles enunciated in Murli Manohar. The facts in Murli Manohar Were substantially similar to the facts herein. The dealers within the State of Haryana purchased raw material without paying tax	 manufactured goods out of the same and sold the manufactured goods to dealers who in turn exported those goods out of India. On these facts it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that inasmuch as the sale to exporters was a penultimate sale falling under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and further inasmuch as Section 9 of the State Act exempted only export sales within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act but not the penultimate sale falling under Section 5(3)	 tax under Section 9 was leviable. On appeal	 this court affirmed that Section 9 of the Haryana Act (before it was amended by Haryana Act 1 of 1988) did not exempt as sale falling under Section 5(3) but exempted only a sale failing under section 5(1). Even so	 the appeal was allowed on the following reasoning "the sales made by the assesses can only fall within one of the three categories. They are either local sales or inter state sales or export sales. . . We are unable to conceive of a fourth category of sale which could	 be neither a local sale nor an interstate sale nor an export sale. " In other words	 the decision says that there can be only three types of sales	 namely	 intrastate sales	 inter :state sales	and export sales and no other. A sale to an exporter would be either an intrastate sale or an inter state sale; in either case	 it does not attract the purchase tax (on raw material) under Section 9 of the Haryana Act	 says the decision: It is on this reasoning that the appeals were allowed inspite of the clear enunciation that the sales failing under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act were not exempt under Section 9 of the Haryana Act	 as it then stood. The above holding is evidently influenced by the decision in Goodyear	 which was good law at the time Murli Manohar was decided. However	 in the light of the decision of Hotel Balaji	 it must be held that there is one more category in addition to the three categories mentioned above. The fourth category is where a dealer in Haryana takes	 his goods out of the Haryana without effecting a sale. An illustration would serve to highlight what we say: a Haryana manufacturer takes his goods to Delhi without effecting a sale. In Delhi. if he finds it more profitable	 459 he will sell it to a dealer in Delhi. Or if he finds it more profitable to sell it to an exporter in Delhi he will sell the same to such exporter. These two sales are neither intrastate sales nor inter state sales	 nor export sales within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In one Case	 it is a sale in Delhi and. the other	 it is a punultimate sale within the meaning of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. According to Section 9 of the Haryapa Act	 as explained in Hotel Balaji and Murli Manohar purchase tax can be levied and collected on the raw. material purchased by the manufacturer within Haryana	 which was utlised for manufacturing the goods so sold in these two situations. We must make it clear that in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution	 it is not our province to go into facts. As repeatedlly emphasised by this court	 the. question whether a particular sale is an intra state sale	an inter state sale 	an export sale within the meaning of section 5(1) or a penultimate sale within the meaning of section 5(3)	 or otherwise	 is always a question of fact to be decided by the apporiate authority in the light of the principles enunciated by Courts. In these circumstances	 we content ourselves by declaring the law and leave it to be applied by the appropriate authorities. Counsel for the petitioners says that all the sales effected by all the petitioners are inter State sales. May be	or may not be. We leave the matters to be	 disposed of by the authorities under the Act in the light of the law declared by &.Is Court in Murli Manohar	 Hotel Balaji and in this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned clarification and	 observations. No costs. V.P.R. Petitions disposed of.

Petitioners firms were registered sales tax dealers. They manufactured and sold handicraft items. As they purchased raw material within the State against declaration forms ST 15 prescribed under Rule 21 of the Haryana general Sales Tax Rules read with Section 24 of the Haryana General Sales tax Act	 purchase tax was not paid. The petitioners sold the items of handicrafts to dealers in Delhi who exported the same out of India. As the Delhi dealers issued Form H	 prescribed under the Cectral Sales Tax Rules	 they did not pay tax on the said sale/purchase. Following the High court decision in M/s. Murli Manohar and company	 Panipat & ors. vs State of Haryana & Ors. C.W. P. No. 1227 of 1980. The Sales Tax Authorities levied purchase tax u/s 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act for the assessment years in question on the purchase of raw material made by the petitioners	 computing the tax with reference ' to the purchase value of the goods exported against Form H. Hence the present writ petition before this Court was filed challenging 454 155 the impugned order of levying purchase tax. Meanwhile this court allowed the appeals preferred against the decision of the High Court in Murli Manohar and Company 's case	 setting aside the judgment of the High Court. As a common question arose in this batch of writ petitions	 all petitions heard together. The petitioners contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Murli Manohar 1991 [1] SCC 377	 the writ petitions were to be allowed. Disposing of the writ petitions	 this Court	 section HELD: 1.1	. The decision in Murli Manohar says that there can be only three types of sales	 namely	 intra state sales	 inter state sales and export sales a nd no other. A sale to an exporter would be either at% intrastate sale or an inter state sale; in either case	 the decision says	 it does not attract the purchase tax(on raw material) under Section 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. However	 in the light of the decision in Hotel Balaji	 it must be held that there is one more category in addition to the three categories mentioned above. The fourth category is where a dealer in Haryana takes his goods (out of Haryana (without effecting a sale	 within the State)	 and effects the sale in the other State. According to Section 9 of the Haryana Act	 as explained in Hotel Balaji	 purchase tax can be levied and collected on the raw material purchased by the manufacture within Haryana	 which was utilised for manufacturing the goods so sold in the other State. (458 D F) Murli Manohar case. ; 	 followed. Good year India Lid. and Ors. vs State of Haryana and Anr. ; 	 referred to. Hotel Balaji and Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & ors. J.T. explained 2.1. In a petition under article 32 of the Constitution it is not the province of the Supreme Court to go into facts. As repeatedly emphasised by this Court	 the question whether a particular sale is an intra state sale	 an inter state sale	 an export sale within the meaning of Section 5(1) or a 456 penultimate sale within the meaning of section 5(3)	 or otherwise	 is always a question of fact to be decided by the appropriate authority in the light of the principles enunciated by Courts. (459 C) 2.2. In these circumstances	 it is directed that the matters be disposed of by the authorities under the Act in the light of the law declared by this Court in Murli Manohar	 Hotel Balaji and in this judgment. (459 D)