JUDGMENT : Hari Lal Agrawal, J. All these four writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of herewith as the fact and the question of law involved in them are 'same and similar, namely, as to whether the transactions of sale of wooden beams (for use as railway sleepers) by the petitioners to the Railway Administration can be deemed to have taken place in course of inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act or not? 2. In the, first case the period of assessment is 1972-73 and 1973-74, in C. W. J. C. Nos. 685 & 686 it is 1973-74 and in C.W.J.C. 687 it is 1972-73. All the petitioners are contractors and work at Rourkela (Orissa). Besides, they are also railway contractors for supply of railway goods including sleepers for use in the railway tracks. In course of their business they purchase certain forest coups in Saronda Forest Division in Singhbhum (Bihar) for the purpose of supplying sleepers to the Railway Administration after manufacturing the same in their factories at Rourkela, and from Rourkela the sleepers were despatched to the concerned Railway authorities. 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa respondent no.1, by the impugned assessment ORDER :s levied central sales tax on the aforesaid transaction, on the ground that it was sale in course of inter-state sale, and assessed the 'amounts mentioned' in the impugned assessment ORDER :s. The petitioners objected to the assessment on the ground that the "sales were made from the State of Orissa and hence they were not liable to be assessed over the transactions by the Sales Tax authorities in the State of Bihar. The contention was rejected by the assessing authority on the 'ground that not only that at the time' when the coups were purchased by the petitioners the contract for supply of sleepers to the Railway Administration had been already entered into by the petitioners but the movement of the goods from Bihar to Orissa had also taken place for preparing the sleepers for the convenience of the dealers and therefore, simply or that account they could not be exempted from the assessment of Central sales tax in the State of Bihar. This ORDER :of respondent no.1 has been affirmed in appeal by die assistant Commissioner and on revision by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jamshedpur Division. This ORDER :of respondent no.1 has been affirmed in appeal by die assistant Commissioner and on revision by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jamshedpur Division. 4. It is not in dispute that the sleepers were despatched to places outside Bihar under the ORDER :s of the Divisional Forest Officer, Saronda and movement of the logs from Bihar to Orissa, took place for conversion of the logs into sleepers. I do not find any substance in one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that by conversion of the logs into sleepers the basic form of the timber was changed. 5. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on the case of Board of Revenue T. A. M. Ansari [38 (1976) S. T. C. 577]. The main question for consideration by the Court in this case was as.t0 whether the auction of forest produce by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. annually could make them dealer' and liable to pay sales tax on the bid amount. On consideration of the fact that the auctions' of forest produce by the Government of Andhra Pradesh were carried on, only annually and not at frequent, intervals, the important element of frequency was lacking and, therefore, it could not be said that the Government was carrying on the business of selling forest produce and as such they could not be made liable to sales tax. 6. The answer to the- question can be more appropriately given on reference to two others cases decided by the Supreme Court, viz, (1) Balabhagas Hulaschand V. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1016 and (2) Union of India and another v. M/s. K.G. Khosla & Co. Ltd. (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1160). In the first case the .supreme Court laid down the test for coming to the conclusion as to whether the transaction was liable to be assessed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The conditions are as follows: (i) that there is an agreement to sell which contains a stipulation express or implied regarding the movement of-the goods from one State-to another; (ii) that in pursuance of the said contract the goods, in fact move from one State to another; and (iii) that ultimately a concluded sale takes place in the State where the goods are sent-which must be different from the State- from which the goods move. It was held that if the aforesaid conditions were satisfied then by virtue of section 9, it is the State from where the goods moved which would be competent to levy the tax. The facts was entered into at Calcutta but the goods were to move from Orissa to Calcutta: rather the movement of goods was occasioned by the sale itself and, therefore, the assessment of Central sales tax in the State of Orissa was held to be valid. The facts-in the second case of the Supreme Court were that the contracts for sale were finalised at New Delhi and the goods, according to the specifications, were manufactured by the dealer in its factory at Faridabad in Haryana and then they were dispatched to the head office in completing the contracts. It was held that the sales in question were inter-state sales and that the turn over was assessable under the Act, by the Sales Tax authorities at Faridabad. 7. Examining the cases on' hand' in the' light oft the above decisions I do not find any escape from holding that the movement of the goods from Chaibasa (Bihar) to Rourkdla (Orissa) for manufacturing sleepers according to the specification, did not change the situs and movement of the timbers from the State of Bihar to Orissa was only for the purpose of preparing the sleepers from the logs according to the specifications of the agreement. In view of these undisputed facts it must be held that the transactions of sale of the sleepers by all the petitioners were in course of inter state trade. The assessing authorities have thus rightly imposed the Central sales 'tax on' the turnovers in question. 8. The applications have therefore, no merit and they must fail. They are accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs.