JUDGMENT N. G. DAS, J. - In this writ petition two questions have been raised for consideration. The first question relates to the constitutional validity of the rule 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 1989, i.e., it is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the second question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the price paid for hiring the trucks in execution of works, viz., transportation of foodgrains, etc., from FSD railway sidings of Dharmanagar and Choraibari to FCI godown complex at Agartala. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. D. K. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents. 3. To appreciate the contentions canvassed at the Bar by learned counsel for the parties, the facts relevant for the purpose may be stated as under : The petitioner which is a proprietory firm was entrusted with the work, namely, for transportation of foodgrains, etc., from FSD railway sidings of Dharmanagar and Choraibari to FCI Godown complex at Agartala at a negotiated rate of 60 per cent above the scheduled rate. As per the work order issued on March 11, 1989 the petitioner-firm started carrying foodgrains, etc., from the aforesaid railway sidings to FCI godown complex at Agartala. To carry the foodgrains from the aforesaid railway sidings by trucks the petitioner made arrangement with respondent No. 6, viz., the Truck Owners' Association, Motor stand, Agartala for supplying trucks, the hiring charge of which was fixed at Rs. 23 per quintal. As per this arrangement, the petitioner used to place trucks at the disposal of the FCI on receipt of the requisition of its officials. But the trouble arose when the respondent No. 3, namely, District Manager, FCI, Agartala, issued a letter on October 24, 1990 asking the petitioner for payment of sales tax on hire charges of the vehicles which were provided for transportation of foodgrains. The respondent No. 3 while addressing this letter also referred to a letter of the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura and a D.O. letter dated August 18 and 31, 1990 from the Revenue Secretary. The respondent No. 3 while addressing this letter also referred to a letter of the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura and a D.O. letter dated August 18 and 31, 1990 from the Revenue Secretary. Referring to the provisions laid down under the rule 3A(3) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the TST Rules") the Revenue Secretary by his aforesaid letter desired that the drawing and disbursing officer who makes payment to the contractor for engagement of vehicles should be made responsible for realisation of sales tax before making payment of his transportation charges. The petitioner raised objection to this letter on the ground that as per the contract entered into between him and the FCI there was no question of payment or realisation of sales tax or hiring charge of the vehicles involved in transportation of foodgrains, etc. It is stated that as per the contract the petitioner is to get the payment at the contractual rate irrespective of the question how the foodgrains were carried from the FSD railway sidings of Dharmanagar and Choraibari to FCI godown complex at Agartala. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of rule 3 of the TST Rules and has contended that as per the contract entered into between the parties the respondent No. 3 or the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have no right to collect sales tax by deducting the same from the bills submitted by him. 5. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 resisted the writ petition by filing a joint affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been admitted that the petitioner was entrusted with the work for transportation of foodgrains from FSD railway sidings, Dharmanagar and Choraibari to FCI godown complex at Agartala. It has also been admitted that as per the contract the petitioner executed the aforesaid work by engaging trucks on hire. But it has been contended that the trucks which carried the foodgrains from the aforesaid railway sidings to the FCI godown complex at Agartala were used to be placed at the disposal of the FCI on receipt of the requisition from depot-in-charge. Thus actual control of operation of the vehicles during such period of carrying foodgrains remained with FCI. But it has been contended that the trucks which carried the foodgrains from the aforesaid railway sidings to the FCI godown complex at Agartala were used to be placed at the disposal of the FCI on receipt of the requisition from depot-in-charge. Thus actual control of operation of the vehicles during such period of carrying foodgrains remained with FCI. Therefore, such transfer constitutes a transfer of right to use the property in the form of goods, which amounts to sale as per definition of "sale" contained in clause (ii) of sub-section (g) of section 2 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act (for short "the TST Act"). It has been further contended that in view of the amendment of section 3 of the principal Act (4th Amendment), namely, TST Act, 1987 inserting the proviso, namely, "Provided further that the rate of tax on any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (Whether or not for a specified period) shall be 4 per cent", the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the rate of 4 per cent. The respondents have, therefore, contended that the respondent No. 3 has committed no error of law in issuing the letter to the petitioner for deduction of sales tax from its bills submitted for transportation of foodgrains, etc., from FSD railway sidings, Dharmanagar and Choraibari to FCI godown complex at Agartala. 6. Mr. B. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that sales tax law, namely, the provision of rule 3A of the TST Rules passed by the State Legislature has ignored the restrictions and conditions incorporated in article 286 of the Constitution of India and as such levy of sales tax on the bills of the petitioner submitted to the FCI cannot be deemed to be a sale under article 366(29A) of the Constitution. But Mr. But Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate has, on the other hand, contended that in view of the 46th Amendment of the Constitution enlarging the definition of the expression "transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration" and interpretation of the Supreme court rendered in the case of Builders Association of India v. Union of India reported in [1989] 73 STC 370 (SC); AIR 1989 SC 1371 there is no scope of advance any argument on behalf of the petitioner that the provision of rule 3A of the TST Rules ultra vires the Constitution. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it may be advantageous at this stage to quote the provisions of rule 3A of the TST Rules and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 of TST Act, 1987 (4th Amendment) which read as under : "3A(1). Every person responsible for making payment to any person (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the contractor) for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration payable for the transfer of property in goods (whether in goods or in any other form) in pursuance of the works contract shall, at the time of making such payment to the contractor either in cash or in any manner, deduct an amount equal to the tax payable under section 3 A of the Act on account of such works contract : Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the bill(s) or invoice(s) of the contractor for execution of works contract on account of the contracts for which work order was issued prior to first January, 1989 : Provided also that any person responsible to make deduction of any amount equal to the amount of tax as mentioned in this rule refer the matter to the Superintendent of Taxes, having jurisdiction over the area, for provisional computation of the turnover and the amount of tax payable thereof by such contractor for the valuable consideration of the goods involved in the works contract. (2) Even person responsible for making payment to any person for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration payable for any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (Whether or not for a specified period) cash or in any manner, shall at the time of making such payment, deduct an amount equal to four per centum of such sum towards part or, as the case may be, full satisfaction of the tax payable under the Act, on account of such transfer of right : Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the bill(s) or invoice(s) of the transferor - (a) On account of such transfer where the transfer of right to use goods was agreed to before first day of January, 1989; (b) The amounts received as penalty for defaults in payment or as damages for any loss or damage caused to the goods by the person to whom such transfer was made; and (c) The amount representing the valuable consideration received for such transfer in respect of goods exempt for tax under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the Act. (3) The amount deducted under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be deposited into the Government treasury by challan in form XI by the person making such deduction within 7th day of the month following that in which the deduction is made. (4) The person making such deduction under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall at the time of payment or discharge, furnish to the person from whose bill(s) and invoice(s) such deduction is made a certificate specifying the amount deducted and the rate(s) at which it has been deducted. (5) A copy of the challan showing the deposit of the amount referred to in sub-rule (3) shall be made over by the person making the deduction to the person from whom the deduction is made within 7 (seven) days of such deposit. (6) The person making such deduction shall furnish to the Superintendent of Taxes, having jurisdiction over the area, a report of such deduction within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of deposit of such amount in form VI-A. (7) The person from whose bill(s) or invoice(s) the deduction was made shall furnish the returns along with the challan to the Superintendent of Taxes having jurisdiction over the area, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. (8) All such deductions and deposits into the Government treasury shall be deemed to be provisional payment of tax which shall be adjusted at the time of assessment under section 9 of the Act. (9) Any deduction made in accordance with the provision of this rule and credited into the Government treasury shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person whose bill(s) or invoice(s) the deduction has been made and credit shall be given to him for the amount so deducted as per deposit challan submitted to the Superintendent of Taxes along with the returns in the assessment made for the assessment year. (10) If any person as is referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) of this rule fails to make deduction or after deducting fails to deposit the amount so deducted as required by sub-rule (3), the Superintendent of Taxes may after giving to such person opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount not so deducted and/or deposited into the Government treasury. (11) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (10) if any such person fails to make the deduction or, after deducting fails to deposit the amount so deducted, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rates contained in section 25 of the Act, on the amount not so deducted, and/or deposited from the date on which such amount was deductible to the date on which the amount is actually deposited. (12) Where the amount has not been deposited after deduction, such amount together with interest an penalty any, shall be recoverable from the person in default as an arrear of land revenue as per provision of sub-section (26) of the Act." Proviso to section 3 of the TST Act, 1987 (4th Amendment) reads : "Provided further that the rate of tax on any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) shall be 4 per cent." 7. A perusal of the provisions quoted above shows that by the aforesaid provisions the State Legislature has made every person responsible for payment of sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent per annum on the expenditure he incurs in securing the services from the contractor for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration payable for the transfer of property in goods (Whether in goods or in any other form). 8. It is, however, not in dispute that powers to levy sales tax was conferred on the State Legislature by the Constitution by entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India which as originally enacted reads thus : "54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92-A of list I of the Seventh Schedule." Entry 92A in List I of the Seventh Schedule pertaining to the Union of India reads as follows : "92A. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce." 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by entry No. 54 of the State List various State Legislatures enacted sales tax laws imposing sales tax on the sale or purchase of goods, the validity of which was challenged in different High Courts and in a series of decisions this aspect was considered by various High Courts. The Supreme Court thereafter in the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353; AIR 1958 SC 560 considered this aspect and held in substance that transactions by way of sales are to be not liable to sales tax. Thereafter in order to subject any transaction to the levy of sales tax under entry 54 of the State List, article 366 of the Constitution was amended by way of 46th Amendment of the Constitution of India which came into force with effect from 2nd February, 1983. This was done by amending the Constitution to include in article 366, a definition of "tax on sale or purchase of goods" by inserting a new clause (29A) in article 366 which deals with definitions provided after its amendment as under : "366. This was done by amending the Constitution to include in article 366, a definition of "tax on sale or purchase of goods" by inserting a new clause (29A) in article 366 which deals with definitions provided after its amendment as under : "366. In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say - (1) to (29)............. (29A) 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes - (a) a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (b) a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (c) a tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments; (d) a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (e) a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (f) A tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made." [Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982.] 10. In the case of Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370 (SC); AIR 1989 SC 1371 the question whether the power to impose tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract is to be found in entry 54 in List II or it is an independent taxing power squarely arose for consideration when the Supreme Court observed as under : "After the 46th Amendment the works contract which was an indivisible one is by a legal fiction altered into a contract which is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services. After the 46th Amendment, it has become possible for the State to levy sales tax on the value of goods involved in a works contract in the same way in which the sales tax was leviable on the price of the goods and materials supplied in a building contract which had been entered into in two distinct and separate parts. It could not have been the contention of the Revenue prior to the 46th Amendment that when the goods and materials had been supplied under a distinct and separate contract by the contractor for the purpose of construction of a building the assessment of sales tax could be made ignoring the restrictions and conditions incorporated in article 286 of the Constitution. If that be the position can the States contend after the 46th Amendment under which by a legal fiction the transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract was made liable to payment of sales tax that they are not governed by article 286 while levying sales tax on sale of goods involved in a works contract ? They cannot do so. When the law creates a legal fiction such fiction should be carried to its logical end. There should not be any hesitation in giving full effect to it. They cannot do so. When the law creates a legal fiction such fiction should be carried to its logical end. There should not be any hesitation in giving full effect to it. If the power to tax a sale in an ordinary sense is subject to certain conditions and restrictions imposed by the Constitution, the power to tax a transaction which is deemed to be a sale under article 366(29A) of the Constitution should also be subject to the same restrictions and conditions Ordinarily unless there is a contract to the contrary in the case of a works contract the property in the goods used in the construction of a building passes to the owner of the land on which the building is constructed, when the goods or materials used are incorporated in the building. The contractor becomes liable to pay the sales tax ordinarily when the goods or materials are so used in the construction of the building and it is not necessary to wait till the final bill is prepared for the entire work. A transfer of property in goods under sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) is deemed to be a sale of the goods involved in the execution of a works contract by the person making the transfer and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer is made. The object of the new definition introduced in clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution is, therefore, to enlarge the scope of 'tax on sale or purchase of goods' wherever it occurs in the Constitution so that it may include within its scope the transfer, delivery of supply of goods that may take place under any of the transactions referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (f) thereof wherever such transfer, delivery or supply becomes subject to levy of sales tax. So construed the expression 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' in entry 54 of the State List, therefore, includes a tax on the transfer for property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract also. The tax leviable by virtue of sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution thus becomes subject to the same discipline to which any levy under entry 54 of the State List is made subject to under the Constitution. The tax leviable by virtue of sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution thus becomes subject to the same discipline to which any levy under entry 54 of the State List is made subject to under the Constitution. The position is the same when one looks at article 286 of the constitution. Clause (1) of article 286 says that no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place - (a) outside the State; or (b) in the course of the import of the goods into or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. Here again one has to read the expression 'a tax on the sale or purchase of goods' found in article 286 as including the transfer of goods referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 which is deemed to be a sale of goods and the tax leviable thereon would be subject to the terms of clause (1) of article 286. ........" 11. In the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204 (SC); (1993) 1 SCC 364 the Supreme Court held that as a result of the Forty-sixth Amendment, the contract which was single and indivisible has been altered by a legal fiction into a contract which is divisible into one for sale of goods and other for supply of labour and services and as a result such a contract which was single and indivisible has been brought on a par with a contract containing two separate agreements. 12. It would, therefore, be apparent from the decisions of the Supreme Court that as a consequence of clause (29A) in article 366 of the Constitution, the ambit of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, was widened to a considerable extent which provides definition to the "tax on the sale or purchase of goods". The definition given in clause (29A) in article 366 brought within the ambit many legal but fictional sales including a tax on the "transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." 13. The definition given in clause (29A) in article 366 brought within the ambit many legal but fictional sales including a tax on the "transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." 13. By the 46th Amendment article 286 of the Constitution also was amended by substituting clause (3) thereof by a new clause. After the amendment clause (3) of the article 286 reads thus : "286. Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods....... (3) Any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, - (a) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce; or (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods, being a tax of the nature referred to in sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (29A) of article 366, be subject to such restrictions and condition in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify." 14. The 46th Amendment also validated laws levying tax and also collection by way of tax under such law subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 15. Section 2(g) of the TST Act, 1976 defines the word "sale" as under : "'Sale' means any transfer or property in goods for cash or deferred payment of other valuable consideration, and includes - (i) any delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment in instalments. (ii) any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose whether or not for a specified period for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such delivery or transfer of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the delivery or transfer and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such delivery or transfer is made, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge." 16. In view of the insertion of clause (29-A) to article 366 of the Constitution by virtue of 46th Amendment to the Constitution and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court as mentioned above I am of the view that the provisions of rule 3A of the TST Rules is not violative to the Constitution. 17. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above I hold that it is permissible for the State Legislatures to levy taxes on the goods involved in the execution of a works contract at the rate of 4 per cent per annum which was imposed by the provision. Admittedly the present case is not a case of inter-State trade or commerce. 18. In the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1993] 88 STC 204 (SC); (1993) 1 SCC 364 it was argued on behalf of the contractor that the deductions should be made in respect of the items from the value of the entire contract, one of those items is transportation charges for transport of goods to the place of works. The Supreme Court held that charges under the head "transportation charges for transport of goods to the place of works" cannot be excluded. It was observed that the position of a contractor in relation to a transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract is not different from that of a dealer in goods who is liable to pay sales tax on the sale price charged by him from the customer for the goods sold. 19. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax. 20. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed, but there would be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.