JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Doubting correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Enertech Engineering Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle and Anr. : (1998) 110 STC 442, this reference has been made to the larger Bench to adjudicate the following questions : (1) Whether an assessee who executes works contract can ask for insertion of certain items in the certificate of registration issued under the Act or the Central Act to purchase the goods for re-sale '? (2) Whether it is entitled to receive declaration Form XXXIV under the Act, and Forms C and F of the Central Act ? The 'Act' and 'Central Act' referred to in the questions relate to Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. A few provisions of the Act and the Central Act need to be noted. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines "sale" and Section 2 (jj) defines "works contract". Section 5 (2)AA deals with "taxable turnover in respect of works contract" and Section 9 deals with "registration of dealers". Rules 6 and 7 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, the "Rules") deals with application for registration and grant of registration certificate respectively. Certificate of registration is granted in Form III. In the Central Act Section 2(g) defines "sale". Section 7 deals with registration of dealers and Section 8 deals with rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Under the Act turnover of works contract is distinct from ordinary turnover. 2. In each case, petitioner's prayer for insertion of certain goods in the certificates of registration issued under the Act and the Central Act in order to enable it to purchase goods free of tax/concessional rate has been turned down by the sales-tax authorities. Consequentially prayer for issuance of requisite declaration forms in order to avail such benefit has been turned down. According to petitioners, the actions are indefensible in as much as being registered dealers they are entitled to such benefits. Brief reference to factual position in OJC Nos. 2792 and 2793 of 1998 needs to be briefly stated. Controversy being similar in other cases, factual background is not necessary to be stated. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. According to petitioners, the actions are indefensible in as much as being registered dealers they are entitled to such benefits. Brief reference to factual position in OJC Nos. 2792 and 2793 of 1998 needs to be briefly stated. Controversy being similar in other cases, factual background is not necessary to be stated. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. Its application for registration under the Central Act was rejected by the Sales-tax Officer. It executes works contract. Prayer made to enlist/endorse the goods/classes of goods to be used for execution of works contract for re-sale in the appropriate column of the registration certificate issued u/s 9-A of the Act, and for registration u/s 7(2) of the Central Act. So far as rejection of the prayer to include 13 items in column 2 of the Registration Certificate is concerned, the matter was carried in revision and the revisional authority has confirmed it with the conclusion that if the items which the petitioner has applied for inclusion in the registration certificate are included then, it will ask for availing the opportunity of purchasing the goods on the strength of declaration. But in the declaration Form XXXIV which is used for purchase of goods on free of tax envisaged, there is stipulation that goods so purchased shall be re-sold in Orissa in a manner that such re-sale shall be subject to levy of tax under the Act. In case of execution of works contract, there shall be no sale and no goods will be utilised for execution of works contract and in that case there will be violation of the provisions. So far as denial to grant certificate of registration under the Central Act is concerned, the Sales-tax Officer was directed to issue registration certificate u/s 7(2) of the Central Act. But it was nevertheless observed contractors to purchase the goods from outside the State on the strength of declaration Form C, which is a separate issue. 3. Stand of the learned counsel for Revenue is that the goods which re not intended for re-sale within the scope of Section 5 (2)A, but are merely meant for works contract u/s 5 (2)AA of the Act cannot be incorporated in the certificate of registration. 3. Stand of the learned counsel for Revenue is that the goods which re not intended for re-sale within the scope of Section 5 (2)A, but are merely meant for works contract u/s 5 (2)AA of the Act cannot be incorporated in the certificate of registration. The Sales- tax Officer is obliged to fill up the Clauses 2 and 3 of Form III only if he is satisfied that such goods are intended for re-sale within the scope of Section 5(2)A and Form XXXIV. Amendment of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the 'Constitution') ipso facto does not amend the expression "tax on the sale or purchase of goods" or any other definition of sale occurring in taxing statutes, unless the respective legislatures amend the respective laws so as to bring in conformity with the scope of the Central Act vis-a-vis Clause 29-A of Article 366 of the Constitution. Thus the concept of 'deemed sales' can be operative in any statute, only if it is so envisaged and necessary amendment is effected. Without amendment, all grammatical variations of the expression 'sale' continue as before. 4. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in view of the decisions of the apex Court in Builders Association India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1989) 73 STC 370 , and Gennon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan : (1993) 88 STC 204 absence of any amendment in the Central Act is of no consequence so far as taxability of works contract is concerned. 5. The Division Bench while dealing with the case in M/s. Enertech Engineering Private Limited (supra) came to the conclusion that the decision of the apex Court in Cooch Behar Contractors Association and Ors. v. State of West Bengal : (1996) 103 STC 477 squarely applies and rejected prayers similar to those contained in these writ applications. It is necessary to take note of the various provisions of Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941 (in short, 'Bengal Finance Act') and West Bengal Sales-tax Act, 1954 (in short, 'Bengal Act') as amended by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short, 'Bengal Amendment Act'). A comparison of the relevant provisions would be appropriate. ORISSA SALES TAX ACT. 1947 WEST BENGAL FINANCE (SALES TAX) ACT. A comparison of the relevant provisions would be appropriate. ORISSA SALES TAX ACT. 1947 WEST BENGAL FINANCE (SALES TAX) ACT. 1941 DEFINITION DEFINITION Section 2 (c) Section 2 (c) 'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of purchasing, selling, supplying or distributing goods (including goods used or involved in the execution of works contract, whether as goods or in some other form) directly or otherwise, whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes- i) .............. (ii) ............. (iii) ............ (iv) ............. (v) .............. (vi) a person who transfers property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract. Section 2 (g) "Sale" means with all its grammatical variations and cognate expression, any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes, - (i) ......... (ii) transfer of property in goods (whether other form) involved in the execution of a works contract. Section 2 (jj) "Works contract" includes any agreement for carrying out, for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, the building, construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, fitting out improvement, modification, repair or commissioning of any movable or immovable property. In Clause (c), for words 'contract and includes the Government', the words, figure and letter 'works contract and includes the Government or any person making a sale u/s 6D' shall be substituted. Section 6D Liability to payment of tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract and rate thereof (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, - (a) any transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form, involved in the execution of a works contract (hereinafter referred to as contractual transfer) shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer and the purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer is made; (b) (i) every dealer whose contractual transfer price during the last year ending on or before the 31 st day of March, 1984, exceeds rupees two lakhs shall, in addition to the tax payable by him under Sec. 5 and Section 6-B, if any, be liable to pay fro the 1st day of April, 1984, a tax at the rate specified in Sub-sec. (3) of such part of his contractual transfer price as specified in Sub-sec. (2); (ii) every dealer other than a dealer referred to in Sub-clause (i), whose contractual transfer price during any year ending on or after the 1st day of April, 1984, exceeds rupees two lakhs shall, in addition to the tax payable by him under Sec, 5 and Section 6B, if any, be liable to pay from the first day of the year immediately following such year a tax at the rate specified in Sub-sec. (3) of such part of his contractual transfer price as specified in Sub-sec. (2); (iii) every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii) shall continue to be so liable until the expiry of three consecutive years during each of which the contractual transfer price does not exceed, rupees two lakhs and on the expiry of such three years his liability to pay such tax shall cease; (iv) every dealer, whose liability to pay tax has ceased under the provisions of Sub-clause (iii), shall, if the contractual transfer price during any year again exceeds rupees two lakhs, be liable to pay from the first day of the year immediately following such year the tax at the rate specified in Sub-sec. (3) of such part of his contractual transfer price as specified in Sub-sec. (2). Explanation 1 : In this section, the expression "contractual transfer price', used in relation to any period, shall mean the aggregate of the amounts received or receivable by a dealer during such period as valuable consideration for the transfer of property in goods used in execution of a works contract, whether or not the amount receivable as valuable consideration for such transfer is separately shown in the works contract, and shall include the value of such goods purchased, manufactured, processed or procured otherwise by the dealers and the cost of freight or delivery as may be incurred by such dealer for carrying such goods to the place where these are used in execution of such works contract, but shall not include such portion of the aforesaid amounts as may be prescribed. II. EXEMPTlONS /DEDUCTIONS/ CONCESSIONS: Section 5 (2)(AA)- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. II. EXEMPTlONS /DEDUCTIONS/ CONCESSIONS: Section 5 (2)(AA)- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. (2) (A) "Taxable turnover" in respect of - (i) 'Works contract' shall be deemed to be the gross value received or receivable by a dealer for carrying out such contract, less the amount of labour charges and service charges incurred for the execution of the contract. The only deduction allowed is labour and service charges which is otherwise not eligible to tax under the O.S.T. Act, 1947. EXEMPTIONS/DEDUCTIONS/ CONCESSIONS : Section 6D(2) - The tax payble under Sub-sec. (1) shall be levied on that part of contractual transfer price of a dealer during any period which remains after deducting therefrom his contractual transfer price during that period on - (a) contractual transfer of goods referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on a prior sale whereof in West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, if such goods are notified for taxable under that Act, is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been paid; (b) contractual transfer of goods, sales of which are declared tax-free under Sec. 6; (c) contractual transfer of goods, sales of which are generally exempt from tax under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause (a) of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 5; (d) contractual transfer of goods, on the purchase of which tax is payable by him under Sec. 6-C; (e) such other contractual transfers as may be prescribed. III. (2) of Section 5; (d) contractual transfer of goods, on the purchase of which tax is payable by him under Sec. 6-C; (e) such other contractual transfers as may be prescribed. III. PROHIBITION/BARS There is no prohibition to use the Declaration Form by the Dealers engaged in the execution of works contract in view of the settled principles of law as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of BHEL v. Union of India (1988) 71 STC 25 , and BHEL v. State of Orissa : (1996) 102 STC 324 The relevant provisions of O.S.T. Act and Rules for the use of Declaration Forms are quoted below : - Section 5 (2)(A)(ii) : Sales to a registered dealer of goods specified in the purchasing dealer's certificate of registration for re-sale by him in Orissa in a manner that such re-sale shall be subject to levy of tax under this Act, and on sales to a registered dealer of containers or other materials for the packing of such goods : Provided that for the purpose of ascertaining the deductions under this item the dealer selling the goods shall furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may after sufficient cause permit. Under Rule 27(2)(ii) A registered dealer who wished to purchase goods from another dealer without payment of tax at the rate applicable at under the Act for the purpose specified in his certificate of registration, shall obtain on application affixed with a fee of five rupees for every twenty- five blank declaration forms prescribed under this sub-rule for issuing them to the selling dealer: Provided that no single declaration shall cover more than one transaction of sale except in cases where the total amount of the sale transaction made under several purchase memos, during a quarter is equal to or less than Rs. 10 thousand or such other amount as the State Government may, by a general order notify in the Official Gazette ; Provided further that no second or subsequent supply of declaration forms shall be made to any such dealer unless he furnishes a true copy of account certified by him under his signature of the Forms last supplied to him as maintained in Form VII-A referred to in Clause (v). III. III. PROHIBITION/BARS : The benefit of use of Declaration Forms under the said Act, has been specifically denied as per Section 5(2) (a)(ii) which is quoted below: (ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods other than rice and wheat, referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), specified in the certificate of registration or such dealer as being intended for re-sale, other than that by way of sale referred to in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (g) of Section 2 or in 6-D, by him in West Bengal, and of containers and other materials for packing of such specified goods. Provided that deduction on account of sales referred to in Sub-clause (ii) shall be allowed to the dealer who sells the goods only when h can furnish in the prescribed manner a declaration containing prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtainable in such manner and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed from the prescribed authority duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold. 6. The Division Bench in M/s. Enertech Engineering Private Limited's case (supra) observed as follows : "Patiently, we have heard the submission of the learned counsel of both sides. We have taken note of the pleadings of the parties. We have gone through the reported decisions cited from the Bar. The problem raised by the petitioner is that 108 STC 477 (supra) has not answered clearly the problems in view of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Carefully we have taken note of the comparative chart of the relevant sections so far as West Bengal Sales Tax Act as well as the Orissa Sales Tax Act is concerned. It is not true as apprehended by the petitioner that in West Bengal Sales Tax Act there are sufficient guidelines to protect the rights of the works contractor which are absent in Orissa Sales Tax Act. On a consistent study about the problems of the works contractor as discussed threadbare in Gannon Dunkerley's case reported in 88 STC 204 as well as 103 STC 477 (supra) and (1989) 73 STC 370 (Builders Association of India v. Union of India) it appears that all the problems have been answered in the instant cases. On a consistent study about the problems of the works contractor as discussed threadbare in Gannon Dunkerley's case reported in 88 STC 204 as well as 103 STC 477 (supra) and (1989) 73 STC 370 (Builders Association of India v. Union of India) it appears that all the problems have been answered in the instant cases. We find that the revisional authority in the impugned order (Annexure-5) has rightly rejected the contentions of the petitioner and we do not find any better merit in the contention of the petitioner to interfere with the same. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. There would be no orders to costs." No detailed analysis of various provisions of concerned statutes has been made. The Division Bench lost sight of the fact that under the Bengal Finance Act, Section 6-D starts with non obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act a person is to be held to be a dealer for effecting sale u/s 6-D. Further in respect of the liability under the Bengal Finance Act a contractor shall not be held to be liable to pay sales-tax under the said Act unless his contractual transfer price exceeds the limitation provided in Section 6-D (1 )(iv). Section 6-D of the said Act is a self-contained provision as has been observed by the Apex Court in Cooch Behar Contractors' Association's case (supra) in the following words : '"A perusal of Section 6-D clearly indicates that it is a self- contained code so far as dealers in works contract are concerned. Wherever concessions the Legislature wanted to extend to such dealers were enumerated in Clauses (a) and (e) and of Sub-section (2) of Section 6-D. Apart from that having regard to the non obstante clause used in Section 6-D, it is made clear that no further concession was intended to be extended to the dealers in works contract, xxxx. The Tribunal has firstly taken a view by holding 'we are satisfied that the contractors, being dealers u/s 6-D read with Section 2(c), have been appropriately grouped together in one class, distinct and separate from the other classes of dealers. The charge of arbitrariness and unreasonableness must fail. The Tribunal has firstly taken a view by holding 'we are satisfied that the contractors, being dealers u/s 6-D read with Section 2(c), have been appropriately grouped together in one class, distinct and separate from the other classes of dealers. The charge of arbitrariness and unreasonableness must fail. The classification cannot be faulted on account of denial of the facility of use of declaration forms, because this class of dealers has been treated and dealt with on a different footing altogether and they are governed by almost a self-contained code envisaged in Section 6-D'." 7. Therefore, the Division Bench in M/s. Enertech' Engineering Private Limited's case (supra) was not correct in concluding that the ratio in Cooch Behar Contractors' Association's case (supra) applied to the case before it. 8. Decisions of this Court and various other High Courts need to be noted. In FACT Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors. : (1991) 82 STC 62, it was observed by this Court as follows : ".......If he is so satisfied then he is bound to issue a certificate of registration and must include.the list of goods in respect of which an application has been made in the prescribed form.xxxxx The Sales Tax Officer will have no further jurisdiction to grant a certificate by mentioning only some of the goods and by omitting others or by not mentioning any goods at all. Issuing a certificate of registration only in respect of some of the goods applied for and not mentioning the other goods applied for would in the eye of law amount to refusal of certificate of registration to that extent and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer must record reasons in writing for such refusal and that too he could refuse only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. This being the position of law, and admittedly the petitioner having made an application oh August 1, 1985, by giving a list of registration is applied for and the Sales Tax Officer having granted a certificate of registration on August 5, 1985, but merely inserting therein 'execution of works contract' as against column 3 of the certificate of registration, it must be held that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the said officer to do so and that also is bad for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as neither he has recorded any reasons in writing nor has he given an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, xxxxxx. In that view of the matter, the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction while granting a certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act to insert in column meant for classes of goods only 'execution of works contract1 in place of the list of goods supplied by the dealer." In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. : (1992) 85 STC 422 , it was observed by the Madras High Court as follows : "That part, in my view, the petitioners are entitled to have themselves registered as dealers u/s 7(2) and consequently are entitled to the supply of 'C forms for use in their purchase of goods in the course of inter-State sale or trade or commerce at the concessional rate. xxx. Instead, in issue a writ of mandamus in all these cases directing my view, it would be appropriate to the respondents to supply the 'C forms, as played for by them in terms of the respective registration certificates held by them or to be granted to them in future." In Beekay Engineering Corporation v. State of Bihar and Ors. : (1992) 87 STC 509 , it was held by the Patna High Court as follows : "From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, there cannot be any doubt that a person who carries onthe business of 'works contract' may transfer property in goods whether as goods or in some other form and as he sells 'goods' involved in the works contract and thus becomes a 'dealer' within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. XX XX XX, XX From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, therefore, it is clear that the goods specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods intended for resale any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf." In J. Devani Builders (P) Ltd., v. Sales Tax Officer (1995) 99 STC 506 it was held by the Gujarat High Court as follows : "This makes, it abundantly clear that a certificate of registration may be obtained by any dealer from the appropriate authority either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) even if any of his transactions does not fall within the definition of 'sale' of goods under the Central Sales Tax Act inviting attractions of the provisions of levy in that Act. That is also the ratio of decision in Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, wherein provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act were held applicable notwithstanding there being no amendment to Section 2(g) for determining whether the transaction amounts to sale in the course of inter-State trade or determining the situs of sale, or whether it is a sale in the course of export outside country." In Salvicate (Balgalore) Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer: (1998) 109 STC 548, it was held by the Kerala High Court as follows: "Once he becomes the registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act he is entitled to get the 'C forms from the prescribed authority. On a reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it will be seen that once the registered dealer obtains certificate authorising him to purchase the goods mentioned therein, he is entitled to get 'C Form from the Officer authorised under the Act to issue, xxxxxx. Therefore the contractor executing works contract is a dealer entitled to receive 'C Forms from the prescribed authority." 9. The inevitable conclusion is that answers to both the questions referred to the larger Bench are in the affirmative. The reference is answered accordingly. The cases be placed before the Division Bench for disposal in terms of answers given. S.N. Phukan, C.J. 10. I agree. A. Pasayat, J. 11. I agree.