Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this petition shall govern the disposal of other petition being W. P. No. 1677 of 1993 as in both these petitions common question of law is involved and secondly, both are filed by the same petitioner. ( 2. ) THE only question that falls for consideration in the petition is, whether assessing authority and revisionary authority were justified on facts in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Central sales tax on certain goods used in execution of works contract effected by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or/and commerce ? The disputes arose on the facts stated infra. ( 3. ) THE petitioner is a dealer as defined under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act (since repealed) as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machinery parts. The petitioner also undertakes the execution of job-work of various parties having their place of business out of State of M. P. , who supply raw material to the petitioner and in turn the petitioner manufactures their parts according to their specifications and requirements and supply them as per terms and conditions of the contract. ( 4. ) ONE such party for whom, the petitioner had undertaken the job-work was Bajaj Auto Limited, Aurangabad (MH ). The petitioner had entered into a contract to manufacture part known as break drums for Bajaj Auto Limited. To enable the petitioner to manufacture and supply these parts (break drum), Bajaj Auto used to supply aluminium (raw material) whereas, one another part--speed ring, the petitioner used to purchase from outside and then Bajaj Auto used to pay for it after adding its price in the price of ultimate product--i. e. , break drum. ( 5. ) FOR the sales tax assessment year 1990-91 (April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991) the assessing officer found that petitioner had in all received a total sum of Rs. 14,06,644 by way of labour charges in execution of works contract with Bajaj Auto Limited. It was also found that in execution of this works contract, the petitioner had procured (speed rings) for the value of Rs. 3,40,100. 14,06,644 by way of labour charges in execution of works contract with Bajaj Auto Limited. It was also found that in execution of this works contract, the petitioner had procured (speed rings) for the value of Rs. 3,40,100. In the opinion of assessing officer, after insertion of 46th Amendment in the Constitution brought in force with effect from July 1, 1984 goods used in execution of works contract are subjected to tax under the State Sales Tax Act. He also held that certain goods whose purchase was made outside State, i. e. , inter-State sale and which are used in execution of the works contract are also subjected to payment of Central sales tax as inter-State sales. Accordingly, as stated supra, the sale/purchase of speed rings whose purchase was effected outside the State was subjected to payment of Central sales tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, by passing an assessment order dated February 28, 1994 for Central sales tax (annexure A ). The petitioner felt aggrieved of assessment order only in so far as it related to imposition of Central sales tax on the purchase of speed rings was concerned, filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax ). The learned revisionary authority by its order dated February 1, 1995 (annexure B) dismissed the revision and upheld the assessment order. In other words, the learned revisionary authority too was of the view while affirming the finding of the assessing officer that petitioner is in the facts of this case liable to pay Central sales tax on the goods used in execution of works contract and which were purchased outside State. It is against these two orders, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ challenging the legality and validity of the orders. ( 6. ) THE State has supported the impugned orders and have prayed for their upholding. ( 7. ) HEARD Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri C. R. Chancholia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents. ( 8. ) RELYING upon the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Haryana [1993] 90 STC 221, learned counsel for the petitioner urged a pure question of law. ( 8. ) RELYING upon the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Haryana [1993] 90 STC 221, learned counsel for the petitioner urged a pure question of law. It was his submission that consequent upon the insertion of Clause (29a) in Article 466 in the Constitution, introducing and defining the expression "tax on the sale or purchase of goods", it was obligatory on the part of the Legislature to have amended the definition of "sale" defined under Section 2 (g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 so as to make it in conformity with the expression defined in Clause (29a) to Article 466 and with a view to impose/recover tax on goods used in execution of contract and which has been acquired by reason of inter-State trade and commerce. In other words, the submission was that when the State Legislature amended the definition of sale as defined under Section 2 (n) under the State Sales Tax Act so as to empower the State to bring the works contract within the net of tax consequent upon the introduction of Clause (29a), then as a necessary corollary, the Parliament should have amended the definition of "sale" as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 so as to empower the authorities to tax interstate sales effected in execution of works contract. It was urged that mere introduction of Clause (29a) in Article 466 of the Constitution does not give any right to tax inter-State transaction under the Central Sales Tax Act unless the definition of "sale" is suitably amended. On this principal submission, learned counsel urged that both the authorities erred in holding that the petitioner is also liable to pay Central sales tax on certain purchases said to have been made in execution of works contract on inter-State trade/commerce basis. ( 9. ) IN reply, learned counsel for the State supported the reasoning/findings of the two authorities and has prayed for their upholding. ( 10. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record of the case, I find no substance in the petition and hence it deserves to be dismissed. ( 11. ( 9. ) IN reply, learned counsel for the State supported the reasoning/findings of the two authorities and has prayed for their upholding. ( 10. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record of the case, I find no substance in the petition and hence it deserves to be dismissed. ( 11. ) WHAT was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was only a pure question of law relying on the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana, referred supra. However, when one peruses the finding of revisionary authority, the petitioner has no case on facts. Indeed, this was precisely an only submission made by the petitioner before the revisionary authority. The learned revisionary authority after formulating this very question examined the case of petitioner on facts and then returned a finding that in view of peculiar facts which are on record, the transaction in question is liable to be subjected to payment of Central sales tax. ( 12. ) SECTION 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides that a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to other. In other words, to attract the applicability of Section 3, whether a particular sale is considered to be an inter-State sale one has to see whether it occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret this Section 3 in number of cases. It was 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 in that event, the sale is an inter-State sale. It was held that if the contract of sale itself contains a stipulation for movement of goods from one State to another then no difficulty arises in holding that the sale is inter-State sale. It was further held that even where it is not so provided by the contract but such movement is the result of covenant or is an incident of contract, it will be an inter-State trade--Union of India v. K. G. Khosla and Co. It was further held that even where it is not so provided by the contract but such movement is the result of covenant or is an incident of contract, it will be an inter-State trade--Union of India v. K. G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 457 (SC), Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1975] 35 STC 445 (SC), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC ). ( 13. ) IT was this aforementioned test that was applied by revisionary authority in the facts of this case. It was found as a fact that in a contract that has been entered into by the petitioner with Bajaj Auto Limited for supply of break drums, the contract itself provides that movement of goods to take place from one State to other in execution of works contract. Once it is found that the contract provides for such a covenant, for movement of goods, then it clearly constitutes an inter-State sale thereby attracting the liability to pay Central sales tax on sale/purchase of those items which were purchased by the petitioner in execution of works contract. In a case of this nature, when the taxability is decided not on the basis of 46th amendment but it was decided strictly on the basis of the covenants contained in the contract. Such finding is not assailable nor it was sought to be assailed by the petitioner. It was a finding based on facts. It is binding on this Court in its writ jurisdiction. ( 14. ) IN my opinion, therefore, no flaw can be found in the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority and that of revisionary authority. ( 15. ) PETITION accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.