SATPAL ( 1 ) BOTH these applications have been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Code ). In IA 5606/93 it has been prayed that defendant Nos. l to 3 be restrained from making any assessment on the basis of letters annexure A and C or any other assessment of sale which to the record of the plaintiff company took place outside Delhi. In IA 6554/93 the plaintiff has prayed for stay of the recovery of any amount under the two demand notices both dated 10th June, 1993 for the years 1990-91 as well as 1991-92 respectively (copies of which have been annexed as annexures E and H to the application) and also for stay of recovery of the amount under assessment orders (copies of which have been annexed as annexures F,g, 1 and J to the application ). Common reply has been filed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 to these application. ( 2 ) MR. Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the transactions being impugned by the defendants 1 to 3 took place outside Delhi and did not fall within ambit and scope of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Local Act ). In this connection, he drew my attention to Section 8 of the Local Act and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Central Act ). He submitted that in terms of Section 8, no sales tax is imposable when such sale or purchase takes place "outside Delhi". He further submitted that in terms of explanation under Section 8 of the Local Act, for determining whether a particular sale or purchase has taken place outside Delhi, Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Central Act are applicable and under Section 4 of the Central Act, the sale or purchase will be deemed to have taken place outside Delhi in case the goods are not lying within the State at the time when the contract for sale or purchase was made. Relying on these provisions, the learned counsel contended that since the vehicles which are subject matter of the assessment orders were not stored in the Union Territory of Delhi when the contract of sale was made, the sale of these vehicles will be deemed to have taken place outside Delhi and as such no sales tax could be levied by the defendants 1 to 3. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgements of the Supreme Court reported as The Instalment Supply Ltd. VS. S. T. D. Ahemadabad, AIR 1974 SC 1195 and State of Kerala VS Ramaswami lyer and Sons, 1966 (3) SCR 582 . ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel also submitted that the error committed by the Assessing Officer is an error of law and the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction which was in violation of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, the learned counsel again placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of The Instalment Supply Ltd. (supra ). The learned counsel, therefore, contended that since the impugned orders passed by the defendants 1 to 3 are without jurisdiction and admittedly the petitioner has not collected the amount of sales tax from the customers, the operation of the impugned orders should be stayed. In support of this contention he placed reliance on a judgement of this Court reported as Kelvinator of India Ltd. , New Delhi Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), 1987 (32) ELT 663 (Del. ). ( 4 ) MR. Chawla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner refused to furnish the explanation on the points raised by the Assessing Officer in connection with sales of the vehicles despite various opportunities given to the petitioner. In this connection, he drew my attention to the assessment order, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures F and I to the applications. In this connection, he drew my attention to the assessment order, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures F and I to the applications. In the assessment order (Annexure F), it has been stated that when the petitioner failed to give the requisite information, with a view to ascertain the correct position, statement of certain customers were recorded and in their statement these customers stated that they had registered the vehicles in Delhi, they placed the order with the petitioner in their Delhi Office and not in their outside office, they made the payments of the vehicles to the petitioner in Delhi or got it financed through a Delhi Company or Delhi Branch and the transportation of the vehicle to Delhi was arranged by the petitioner-Company and they paid transportation charges in Delhi Office and took physical delivery of the vehicle from the Delhi Office and further they were provided after sale service in Delhi. Relying on these facts, the learned counsel submitted that the sales of the vehicles in question cannot be deemed to have taken place outside Delhi. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned assessment orders were appealable under the Local Act and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The learned counsel drew my attention to annexure D-4 annexed to the reply filed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 which is a chart showing the details of various other dealers who have filed appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Local Act against the impugned assessment order with regard to the sales of the vehciles in the similar circumstances. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Section 67 of the Local Act and a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. VS State of Bombay, AIR 1965 SC 1942 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. VS. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 34 (1988) D. L. T. 91. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that even on merits this Court should not exercise its discretionary power to grant unconditional stay in favour of the petitioner in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 34 (1988) D. L. T. 91. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that even on merits this Court should not exercise its discretionary power to grant unconditional stay in favour of the petitioner in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed relaince on a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in the case Empire Industries Ltd. Vs Union Of India, Vol. 64 Sales Tax cases 42 (SC) and a judgement of this Court reported in the case of Catrers VS Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vol. 62, Sales Tax Cases, 22. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In the case of Kamala Mills Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the appellant in that case that the transactions were outside the sales and this did not fall under the charging section because of Article 286 of the Constitution and as such the appropriate authorities committed a mistake of fact as well as law. The Supreme Court held that "assuming that such a mistake was committed, the conclusion that the transactions in question fell within the purview of the charging Section cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity and the assessment based even on such an erroneous conclusion would claim the protection of Section 20. It may be pointed out here that Section 20 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 is in parameter to Section 67 of the Local Act. In reply to the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala (supra) wherein it was held that "even if the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded, where the provisions of the statute have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in confirmity with the fundamental principles of the judicial procedure, the civil courts have jurisdiction to examine those cases". The question whether the provisions of the statute have been complied with or not in the present case will depend on the facts of the case and this point cannot be decided while disposing of these applications. In case it is held that the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority was within jurisdiction, the suit will not be maintainable and the remedy of the plaintiff will be only to challenge those orders before the Appellate Authority under the Local Act. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the facts mentioned hereinabove and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to unconditional stay of the impugned orders. Paras 9 and 10 of the plaint indicate that the total amount of sales involved in this case comes to Rs. 12,11,53,151. 41 and the amount of sales tax comes to Rs. 1,21,15,315. 00 -. Having regard to the facts mentioned herein above and the fact that the plaintiff has not collected any tax, I stay the operation of the impugned orders subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 5. 00 lacs in cash and furnishes security of the immoveable properties in the sum of Rs. 20. 00 lacs to the satisfaction of the defendant No. l within four weeks from today. It is, however, made clear that to save the limitation, the petitioner will be at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Local Act against the impugned assessment orders during the pendency of this case. With this order both the applications stand disposed of. IA 6555/93. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Code ). Keeping in view the facts stated in this application, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is exempted from serving notice as required by Section 80 (1) of the Code. With this order the IA stands disposed of. IAs. 56q6 and 6554/93. Separate order has been passed in these IAs. IAs 5605, 6556 and 6764/93 Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List these applications for arguments on 23rd November, 1993.