Dr. B.P.Saraf, J.— The petitioner is a partnership firm having its place of business at Calcutta. The petitioner undertakes execution of contracts for supply, erection and commissioning of electrical equipments in different States. On 7.2.86, it entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer, Micro Hyde! Investigation Division, Government of Tripura for execution of the work of "supply, erection and commissioning of 66/11 K.V.6.3 MVA Sub-Station at Sonamura in the State of Tripura". The work also involved supply of materials required for the purpose. The petitioner purchased the materials in deferent States outside the State of Tripara or placed orders for supply of the same to Tripura for use in execution of the aforesaid contract. The terms of the contract stipulated movement of the goods from such other States to the State of Tripura. As the transactions in this case related to a period after the coming into force of the Constitution (46th Amendment )Act, 1982 which enables the States to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract and incorporation of section 3A in the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter '-the Tripura Act", by the Tripura Sales Tax (3rd Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides for payment of tax on such transfers, there is no controvercy as to \vheilier the transfer of property in execution of the aforesaid contract amounts to sale or not. The undisputed position is that it amounts to sale and is exigible to tax. As the supplies of materials in the instant case for use in execution of the contract were all made from outside the State of Tripura, such supplies, according to the petitioner, amounted to inter State sales eligible to tax under the Central Act. There was no intra State sale in Tripura. The petitioner, therefore, did not register himself as a dealer under the sales tax Act in Tripura. It was, however, registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, here­in after "the Central Act", in the State of West Bengal. It also filed its returns of turnover under the Central Act with the authorities under the said Act in West Bengal. On 9th May, 1987, the petitioner firm received a notice of demand issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala under section 23 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act. An order of assessment was also annexed. It also filed its returns of turnover under the Central Act with the authorities under the said Act in West Bengal. On 9th May, 1987, the petitioner firm received a notice of demand issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala under section 23 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act. An order of assessment was also annexed. From the order of assessment, it could be gathered that tax had been levied by the Superintendent of Taxes on the value of materials supplied by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Tripura from places outside the State of Tripura treating the same as "intra State sale in Tripura". It was done on the ground that the actual transfer of property in the materials used in the contract took place in the State of Tripura. In the said order of assessment, reference was also made to a notice under section 6(1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act issued by the Superintendent of Taxes asking the petitioner firm to show cause as to why it should not be registered as a dealer under the said Act. The petitioner, however, denied the receipt of any such notice. As the Superin­tendent of Taxes was of the opinion that the supplies made by the petitioner during the period 3.7.86 to 11.2.87 amounting to Rs. 37,93,326.36 were intra State sales, he made the impugned assessment under section 11(2) of the Tripura Act. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of assessment made under section 11(1) of the Tripura Act on two grounds. The first ground is that the assessment is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as it has been passed without initiating any proceeding for assessment under section 11(1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act by service of a valid notice calling fora return which is a condition precedent for such initiation. The second conten­tion of the petitioner is that the assessment is not tenable even on facts, inas­much as there is no intra State sale involved in the transaction in question. The submission, in other words, is that the Superintendent of Taxes acted erroneously in holding; that as the actual transfer of property in the materials took place in the State of Tripura it was a intra-State sale, in complete disregard to the well-settled principles for determining when a sale is deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. We have carefully considered both the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate. We may first take up the question as to whether there was a valid initiation of proceedings under section 11 (1) of the Tripura Act which could enable the Superintendent of Taxes to make the impugned assessment. The material facts of this case are not in dispute. The admitted position is that no notice contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act was served on the petitioner requiring him to file the return for the relevant period. The only notice that is claimed to have been issued was a notice under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Tripura Act asking the petitioner to apply for registration. Evidently it was not a notice under section 11 (1) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned assessment, admittedly made without service of a notice under section 11(1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, is legal and valid. For proper appreciation of this controversy it is necessary to refer to section 11 of the Tripura Act which deals with the powers of the authorities to make assessment in cases of evasion and escape. It reads :- "11. For proper appreciation of this controversy it is necessary to refer to section 11 of the Tripura Act which deals with the powers of the authorities to make assessment in cases of evasion and escape. It reads :- "11. Assessment in cases of evasion and escape :-(1) If upon informa­tion which has come into his possession the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless failed to apply for registration and to make the return required of him or that sales of taxable goods has escaped assessment in any period or has been under assessed or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made there from, the Commi­ssioner may, at any time within eight years of the end of the aforesaid period, serve on the dealer a notice containing all or any of the requ­irements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 3, and may proceed to assess the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods, and the provisions of this Act, so far as may be, shall apply accordingly &-, if the notice were a notice issued under the aforesaid sub-section : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate of which it would have been ordinarily chargeable. (2) The Commissioner may authorise any person appointed under section 4 to assist him in investigating any case or points in a case at any stage and to make a report thereon to the Commissioner or any prescribed authority in respect of all or any of the assessment made in relation to the case in order to prevent the evasion of tax. After considering the report of investigating officer the Commissioner may proceed to take action under sub-section (1) besides initiating any other action under this Act against the dealer concerned." From a bare reading of section 11 it is clear that this section provides for assessment or reassessment of a dealer on fulfilment of conditions specified therein. There are three stages of the proceedings under this section (1) assumption of jurisdiction, (2) initiation of proceedings for assessment, and (3) assessment. There are three stages of the proceedings under this section (1) assumption of jurisdiction, (2) initiation of proceedings for assessment, and (3) assessment. The following conditions must be satisfied before the authority concerned can assume jurisdiction under this section - (1) It should be satisfied that - (a) any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless failed to apply for registration and to make the return required of him, or that (b) sales of taxable goods (i) has escaped assessment in any period, or (ii) has been under-assessed, or (iii) assessed at a lower rate, or (iv) any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom. (21 The satisfaction should be based upon information which has come into his possession. If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the authority concerned can assume jurisdiction under section 11 and initiate the proceedings for assess­ment of the dealer for the relevant period. The initiation of proceedings can be done by service on the dealer concerned a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act. No form of notice has been prescribed. What is required is that a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 8 should be served. Sub-section (2) of section 8 provides for a notice in the prescribed form requiring a dealer to furnish a return of his turnover to the authority concerned. Therefore, to initiate a proceeding under sub-section (1) of section 11 for assessment or reassessment of a dealer, a notice must be served on the dealer concerned within the specified time requiring him to furnish return of his turnover for a particular period during which the evasion or escapement is alleged. Proceedings under section 11(1) commence only with the service of such a notice. The time limit for service of such notice is eight years of the end of the relevant period. Service of a valid notice within the specified time is thus a condition precedent for initia­tion of proceedings for assessment or reassessment. If the aforesaid conditions for assumption of jurisdiction and initiation of proceedings are fulfilled, the authority concerned can proceed to assess the dealer. The machinery for assessment has not been set out in section 11. Service of a valid notice within the specified time is thus a condition precedent for initia­tion of proceedings for assessment or reassessment. If the aforesaid conditions for assumption of jurisdiction and initiation of proceedings are fulfilled, the authority concerned can proceed to assess the dealer. The machinery for assessment has not been set out in section 11. What has been provided is that once proceedings are validly initiated under this section, assessment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act dealing with regular assessment. Section 9 is the relevant section which deals with assessment. Thus an assessment, though made in pursuance of proceedings under section 11 (1) of the Act, shall be an assessment under section 9 of the Act and all the requirements of the said section shall apply to such an assessment. Section 9 provides for three kinds of assessment, namely, (i) assessment on the basis of the return, (ii) assess­ment on the basis of evidence adduced by the dealer in pursuance of notice issued to him under sub-section (2) of section 9, and (iii) best judgment assess­ment. Thus, if a return is submitted by a dealer in response to the notice it may be accepted by the authority concerned as correct and complete and he may be assessed on the basis of such return. If such a return is not accepted, the dealer must be given an opportunity of being heard as in case of original assessment proceedings under section 9 (2) of the Act. If the assessee fails to comply with a notice requiring him to furnish a return or to produce books of account or other documents under sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Act, best judgment assessment can be made under section 11 (1) of the Act read with sub-section (4) of section 9. From the foregoing discussions it is clear that in order to make an assessment against a dealer under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act mere satisfaction of the authority in regard to escapement of the turnover or the liability of the dealer and his failure to register himself under the Act is not enough. That simply gives him power to assume jurisdiction and initiate proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 11 by service of a notice on such dealer requiring him to furnish a return of his turnover for a particular period or periods. That simply gives him power to assume jurisdiction and initiate proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 11 by service of a notice on such dealer requiring him to furnish a return of his turnover for a particular period or periods. Once proceedings for assessment or reassessment are initiated under sub-section (1) of section 11 by service of notice as indicated above, all the relevant provisions of the Act, including the provis­ions for assessment, apply as they apply to an original assessment. In otherwords, whether the dealer in pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section 1), submits a return or not, the assessment shall have to be made in the manner laid down in section 9 of the Act and in no other manner. In the instant case, the admitted position is that no notice contem­plated by sub-section (1) of section 11 was served on the dealer. The Super­intendent of Taxes, on being satisfied that the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 3A (1) of the Act on the value of the contract in the State of Tripura, straightway assessed the petitioner in the purported exercise of powers under section 11(1) of the Act by passing the impugned order of assessment. Evidently, this cannot be done under the law. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the condition precedent for assessment under section 11 of the Act, namely, service of a notice under the said section to the dealer concerned admittedly having not been fulfilled in the instant case, the assessment is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. We may now turn to the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case evidently there being no intra-State sale in Tripura, no tax could be levied on the value of goods used in execution of the works contract in the State of Tripura only on the ground that the actual transfer of property used in the works contract took place in the State of Tripura. Counsel relies in this connection on a letter dated 3.1.87 issued by the Executive Engineer, Micro Hydel Investigation Division, Government of Tripura to the Commissioner of Taxes stating the facts of the case, mode of supplies etc. which goes to show that the sales in question were inter-State sales. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. Counsel relies in this connection on a letter dated 3.1.87 issued by the Executive Engineer, Micro Hydel Investigation Division, Government of Tripura to the Commissioner of Taxes stating the facts of the case, mode of supplies etc. which goes to show that the sales in question were inter-State sales. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The submission of the learned Government Advocate is that as in works contracts the transfer takes place only when the goods are used in the work, the sale would be intra-State sale and not inter-State sale. The submission of the Government Advocate, in other words, is that Article 286 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Central Act are not applicable to deemed salts and purchases under clause (29A) of Article 366 of the Constitution, namely, transfer of property in execution of works contract. We find that this aspect of the matter is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India vs. Union of India, (1989) 75 STC 370 wherein repelling similar contention, it was declared that sales tax laws passed by the Legislatures of States levying taxes on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in execution of a works contract were subject to the restrictions and contentions mentioned in each clause or sub-clause of Article 286 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss this aspect of the matter. The principles for determining when a sale takes place in course of inter-State trade or commerce laid down in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act would apply equally to transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract. Section 3 of the Central Act lays down the principle for determining when a sale or purchase of goods take place in course of inter State trade or commerce. Interpreting this section the Supreme Court has also in a number of cases held that if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident of contract of sale then the sale is an inter State sale. Interpreting this section the Supreme Court has also in a number of cases held that if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident of contract of sale then the sale is an inter State sale. The inter-State movement must be result of a covenant, experess or implied in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. If the movement of goods is the result of contract and is an incident of an agreement between the parties the transaction will remain a sale in course of inter State trade no matter in which State the delivery of the goods is taken by the purchaser. The passing of property in a particular State is not relevant criteria for determining whether a sale is an inter State sale or not. Refeience may be made in this connection to the following observation of the Supreme Court in Oil India Ltd vs. Superintendent of Taxes (1975) 35 STC 445 , 449 : “No matter in which State the property in the goods passes, a sale which occasions movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of the inter-State trade'." In Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 38 STC 435 (at p.439), repelling the contention of the State of Bihar that because delivery of crude oil took place in Bihar, it was not an inter-State sale, the Supreme Court observed ; " The delivery may be in Assam or in Bihar at Barauni but the movement of the goods is the result of contract and as an incident to the agreement between the Commission and the Corporation." The sale was, therefore, held to be an inter State sale. The same view was reiterated in English Electric Company of India Ltd vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & others, (1976) 38 STC 475 , (at page 479) in the following words : "When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale is one which occasions that movement of goods from one State to another ..." In Union of India & another vs. K.G. Khosla & Co.Ltd. (1979) 43 STC 457 the Supreme Court, after referring to a number of earlier decisions on the point, at page 464 of the report, observed : "The decisions to which we have referred above show that in order that a sale may be regarded as an inter-State sale, it is immaterial whether the property in the goods passes in one State or another. The question as regards the nature of the sale, that is, whether it is an inter State sale or an intra State sale, does not depend upon the circumstances as to in which State the property in goods passes. It may pass in either State and yet the sale can be an inter-State sale." In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it is clear that the sale in the instant case was an inter-State sale. The fact that the use of the materials was made in a work contract in State of Tripura did not in any way affect the inter-State nature of the transaction. Evidently, the decision of the Superintendent of Taxes holding the sale in the instant case as intra-State sale on the ground that the property thereby passed to the buyer in the State of Tripura goes 10 counter to the Jaw laid down by the Supreme Court. As indicated above, the place of delivery or the place where the property in the goods passes is not material for determining whether the sale was an inter-State or intra-State sale. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of assessment and the notice of demand issued in pursuance thereof are quashed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respond­ents to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) to the petitioner by way of cost.