Judgment B. P. Singh and S. B. Sinha, JJ. 1. We have head Dr. Debi Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Narayan Roy, the learned government Pleader No.2 appearing on behalf of the Mate at length. In our opinion this case should be disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioners initially filed this writ petition praying therein the following reliefs :- " (i) it be declared that Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, the bihar Finance Act 1981 particularly Sec.21 (1) (a) (i) thereof as inserted by the Bihar Finance Act 1984 and Rules 13-A and 26-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules 1983 are ultra-vires the Constitution of india, illegal, without jurisdiction, void and of no effect and unenforceable; (ii) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari be issued for quashing the notices etc, as contained in Annexure-7 series be not quashed. (iii) Any other appropriate writ (s) be issued, orders (s) be passed and direction (s) be made as to Your Lordships may appear fit and proper. " 3. By an order dated 24-5-1988 this application was directed to be put up after disposal of C. W. J C. No.152 of 1988 (R ). 4. On 23-8-1989, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ application praying inter-alia that the following relief be alto granted to it: "for issuanse of appropriate writ (s) Order (s)/direction (s) commanding upon the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.4, who is assessing authority, not to assess the petitioner on that part of the works contract, which has been assigned by the petitioner to a sub-contractor. " 5. By an order dated 25-8-1989 the said application for amendment was directed to be considered at the time of admission of the writ application itself. 6. The main points which were initially raided in this writ application are no longer res-integra, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders association Ltd. V/s. Union of India, reported in 1989 Bihar Law Times page 151 wherein the Supreme Court up held the Constitutional validity of Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982. 6. The main points which were initially raided in this writ application are no longer res-integra, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders association Ltd. V/s. Union of India, reported in 1989 Bihar Law Times page 151 wherein the Supreme Court up held the Constitutional validity of Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982. This Court in Jamshedpur Contractors Association V/s. Union of India in c. W. J. C. No, 1304 of 988 (R) and other analogous cases Reported in BLT 1989 (Rep.381) had held following the principles laid down by the Supreme court that Rule 13 (A) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, is ultra vires the Constitution of India 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the application tor amendment should be allowed and the said application should be treated as part of main writ petition. 8. The petitioners have stated that a contract has been granted to petitioner No.1 by M /s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. for the Construction of 3.6 MGD Sewage treatment plant at Southern Pumping Station, Jamshedpur, which job consist of mechanical, electrical, structural and earth works etc. 9. The petitioners have further asserted that for execution of the aforementioned works contract, petitioner No.1 has engaged a sub-contractor namely m/s Specon India Ltd. and the said sub-contractor executed that part of the contract which was assigned to it by the petitioners in accordance with the terms of the contract itself. 10. The further case of the petitioners is that the aforementioned subcontractor is paying Sales Tax in respect of the goods supplied by it for execution of the works contract in terms of the provisions of Bihar Finance Act and the bihar Sales Tax Rules. 11. It is further alleged that in the year 1984-85 the petitioner No.1 and the sub-contiactor were both separately assessed. However, in the year 1985-86 the petitioner No.1 has been assessed in respect of the entire works which included that part ot the work which was performed by the sub-contractor in execution of the entire works contract. 12. Dr. 11. It is further alleged that in the year 1984-85 the petitioner No.1 and the sub-contiactor were both separately assessed. However, in the year 1985-86 the petitioner No.1 has been assessed in respect of the entire works which included that part ot the work which was performed by the sub-contractor in execution of the entire works contract. 12. Dr. D. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in this case part of the contract having been assigned in favour of the aforementioned M/s pecon India Ltd. in terms of the provisions of the contract entered into by and between the petitioner No, 1 and M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. the Sales tax is not payable by the petitioner No.1 in respect of the entire job. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that in view of the fact that the aforementioned sub-contractor was being separately assessed in respect of the goods supplied and works done which formed part of the aforementioned sub-contract, in respect thereof and for supply of the same goods the petitioner No.1 cannot be over again held liable for payment of sales Tax. Property in the goods supplied passes only once to the principal, regardless of the fact whether the work is executed by the contractor or the sub-contractor. 13. In Builders Associations case (Supra) the Supreme Court upon consi-dering the provisions of the Constitution 46th amendment as also the other provisions thereof came to the conclusion that Sales Tax is to be paid only in respect of such goods (in any form) which are supplied by the Contractor to the principal in execution of the works contract. 14. Thus, it is clear that a sub-contract if granted validly and in terms of provisions of contract entered into by and between the principal and the contractor mam that is a put of main contract itself. 15. It is also clear that any goods supplied by the sub-contractor in execution of his portion of the job, would be relatable to supply of goods in execution of the works contract itself between the principal and the mam contractor. 15. It is also clear that any goods supplied by the sub-contractor in execution of his portion of the job, would be relatable to supply of goods in execution of the works contract itself between the principal and the mam contractor. So far as the principal is concerned, unless there exists a contrary intention expressed in the agreement itself, goods supplied in execution of the works contract whether in respect of the work assigned to the sub-contractor or work executed by the contractor himself would form one transaction. 16. Therefore, if any sub-contractoi in execution 011 ot the portion of the works contract which has been assigned to it supplied any goods, he would be liable to pay Sales Tax ; whereas in respect of the goods supplied by the mam contractor in execution of the works contract which part it retained for itself, the sales tax would be payable by it. In respect ot the supply of goods property wherein passes to the principal, Sales Tax is leviable only once. 17. The learned Government pleader No.2 appearing on behalf of the state could not contravert this position of law. 18. It is well known that taxing statutes must be construed strictly. In terms of the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act and the Rules framed there-under, as indicated here-in-before, only the goods which are supplied in execution of the works contract are liable to be taxed. It is also evident, whether the said goods are supplied by the sub-contractor or the contractor himself, title in relation thereto passes to the Principal only in execution of the mam contract. Thus, the said goods would be liable to be taxed only once. 19. If the sub-contractor had already been assessed, and in the order of assessment passed the assessing authority had already taken into consideration the goods which were supplied in execution of his portion of the contract, in our opinion, no further, sales tax would be leviable thereupon. 20. Thus, the said goods would be liable to be taxed only once. 19. If the sub-contractor had already been assessed, and in the order of assessment passed the assessing authority had already taken into consideration the goods which were supplied in execution of his portion of the contract, in our opinion, no further, sales tax would be leviable thereupon. 20. In this view oi the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part and the order of assessment and the notice of penalty issued against the petitioner as contained in Anncxures-5 and 6 ot the writ petition are quashed and the respondent No.4 is hereby directed to proceed with the assessment proceeding and/or penalty proceeding in accordance with law, keeping in view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Associations Case (Supra), the decision in jamshedpur Associations case (Supra) and the observations made herein before. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs petition allowed.