ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner/Western Railways are aggrieved by the demand notice dated November 15, 1999 issued by respondent No. 3-- Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-I, Ratlam, under Section 33(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. 2. The petitioners have sought to impugn the demand as according to them it is contrary to the mandate of Article 285(1) of the Constitution which prohibits imposition of any tax by the State Government against the Union of India. The respondents have, however, defended the impugned demand and it was contended that the petitioners were dealers within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Adhiniyam, 1994 and were liable to be assessed for payment of commercial tax. A preliminary objection was also raised that since the dispute is between the Government of India and the State Government, it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under Article 131 of the Constitution. 3. As regards the preliminary objection, it may be noted at the outset that there is no such dispute between the Central and State Governments and the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the demand raised by respondent No. 3--a quasi-judicial authority under the Adhiniyam, 1994. Union of India and the State Government have been made parties mainly because the demand is raised against the railways owned by the Union of India and the demand is raised by an authority constituted by the State Government. In all most similar situation, the apex Court in Union of India v. State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 127 held that jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ in such, matters was not excluded by Article 131. 4. Coming to the impugned demand (annexure A), it is clearly in violation of the mandate of Article 285(1) of the Constitution which clearly exempted properties of the Union from State taxation. Although Central Government or its authorities fell within the purview of the term "dealer" as defined by Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 1994, this definition notwithstanding, the bar contained under Article 285(1) comes in the way of the State authorities in assessing any tax on the properties belonging to the Union. Although Central Government or its authorities fell within the purview of the term "dealer" as defined by Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 1994, this definition notwithstanding, the bar contained under Article 285(1) comes in the way of the State authorities in assessing any tax on the properties belonging to the Union. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Union of India [1990] 79 STC 437 dealing with a similar provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, held : "There is no dispute that the Union of India is the owner of the Northern Railway Departmental Catering, Railway Station, Pathankot. The goods were purchased by the railways and were sold by the railways. The tax was imposed on the sale of goods. At the time of the sale, the goods belonged to the Railways. In view of the provisions of Article 285(1) of the Constitution, such sales were immune from taxation under the State law. That was also the view of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed, but no order as to costs." 5. The demand notice issued by respondent No. 3 was, therefore, without jurisdiction being contrary to the mandate of Article 285(1) of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly allowed and the notice (annexure A) is quashed. No order is made as to costs of this petition.