Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has filed four civil writ petitions Nos. 4360, 4851, 5395 of 1991 and 1998 of 1992. These writ petitions have been filed in respect of assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 to 1990-91. The petitioner challenges the vires of proviso to Notes 2 and 3 to Section 2(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as amended by Act No. 1 of 1989. It also challenges the orders of assessment passed in respect of the aforesaid years. 2. Mr. A.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that the constitutional validity of the provision was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Haryana [1993] 90 STC 221. It was, however, upheld on a concession made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the use of goods "in the execution of the works contract" shall be confined to "intra-State sales and cannot cover inter-State sales within its purview". The counsel submits that if this yardstick is applied, the levy of tax in respect of the job-work done by the petitioner in respect of different years of assessment would not be sustainable. 3. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Advocate-General has contended that the issue raised by the petitioner requires determination of facts. This could have been done only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The petitioner could have invoked the remedy of appeal and proved facts. He further points out that the orders of assessment were passed in the year 1991-92. The petitioner had got orders for stay of recovery. The tax has not been paid. The amount due from the petitioner has multiplied manifold. At this belated stage, the issue should not be entertained by the court. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the matter has remained pending in this Court for about ten years. It is also true that on account of the interim orders the State was unable to recover the due amount from the petitioner. However, the State should only collect whatever is actually due. Nothing more. Since the issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner deserves examination, it would not be fair to disallow the relief solely on account of delay in approaching the appellate authority. However, the State should only collect whatever is actually due. Nothing more. Since the issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner deserves examination, it would not be fair to disallow the relief solely on account of delay in approaching the appellate authority. This is all the more so in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court without any avoidable loss of time. 5. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we find that the amount due from the petitioner must have multiplied manifold. However, in case the petitioner makes the deposit of the amount as assessed within four weeks from today and files appeals in respect of different years of assessment within six weeks (from today), the appellate authority shall consider the matter on merits. It shall not dismiss the appeals on the ground of delay. 6. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.