BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ applications were heard together as common questions of law were involved in these applications. I, however, propose to deal with W. P. No. 1949 of 2002 first. W. P. No. 1949 of 2002 :by this writ application, the writ petitioners initially prayed for an order directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to withdraw, cancel and set aside the decision contained in the letter dated August 13, 2002 of respondent No. 4 and the purported notice to show cause dated August 22, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent No. 2 by order dated October 22, 2002 having passed order holding that the petitioners are liable to pay tax after overruling the plea of the petitioners, such order has also been challenged in this writ application pursuant to the leave granted by the division Bench. ( 2 ) THE facts giving arise to the filing of the instant writ application may be summarised thus: the petitioner No. 1 is a health care and life saving institution engaged in rendering medical treatment. The petitioner No. 1 in order of import into West Bengal one Signa Profile Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imagine system (hereinafter referred to as MRI system) placed order upon respondent No. 6 and on the basis of such order, the respondent No. 6 placed a purchase order on GE Specific PTE Limited, Singapore for supply of the said MRI system. For the above purpose, the petitioner No. 1 obtained a letter of credit issued by the Standard Chartered Bank to meet the cost of importation of the said MRI system. After the said MRI system was cleared by the Customs authorities for home consumption, respondent No. 6 delivered the goods to the Transport Authority of India Limited for due delivery thereof at the premises of petitioner No. 1 at Kolkata. The petitioner No. l made an application in form 42 to the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 respectively for issue of way bill under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules permitting transportation of the said MRI system across the designated check-post. The petitioner No. l made an application in form 42 to the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 respectively for issue of way bill under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules permitting transportation of the said MRI system across the designated check-post. As the way bill was not issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 made a representation before Sri M. N. Roy, the then Sales Tax Commissioner, for issue a way bill in form 42 under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 permitting transportation of the said MRI system across the designated check-post in West Bengal as required under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner of Commercial Taxes agreed to issue way bill on an undertaking from the petitioner No. 1 that consumption tax would be paid by it in case it was unable to get an order of the honourable High Court relating to non-payment of consumption tax. The Commissioner allowed 30 days' time from the date of issue of way bill to obtain such order from this Court. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner No. 1 made a fresh application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on July 31, 2002. A representative of the petitioners also appeared before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on May 12, 2002 and explained that the exemption granted by rule 5a (2) (c) of the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Rules, 2001 ("rules") was available in respect of such MRI system as the petitioner caused the goods to be brought into the local area from outside India. ( 5 ) THE Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, further directed the petitioners to give undertaking as directed by his predecessor for obtaining way bill. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter, filed a further application dated August 12, 2002 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. ( 6 ) ULTIMATELY, the petitioner No. 1 received a letter dated August 13, 2002 from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Public Relation Officer stating that the said MRI system was not brought by the petitioner No. 1 directly from outside the territory of India. ( 6 ) ULTIMATELY, the petitioner No. 1 received a letter dated August 13, 2002 from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Public Relation Officer stating that the said MRI system was not brought by the petitioner No. 1 directly from outside the territory of India. However, in order to avoid further loss of the goods and without finding any other alternative the petitioner No. 1 filed an undertaking on August 22, 2002 that they would be liable to pay consumption tax on the said MRI system in case they were unable to obtain an order from this Court for non-payment of tax under the said Act within 30 days from the date of issue of way bill. Consequently, the way bill in form 42 was issued to the petitioner No- 1 on August 22, 2002 and the said MRI system is being brought into West Bengal. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice to show cause dated August 22, 2002 in which it was alleged that the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 4 of the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 7 ) BY this writ application the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notice as also the subsequent decision dated October 22, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner No. 1 is liable to pay the tax and is not entitled to get exemption in terms of rule 5a (2) (c) of the Rules mentioned above. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have subsequently filed supplementary affidavit and have relied upon various documents for the purpose of showing that the petitioners deserve exemption under rule 5a (2) (c) of the Rules mentioned above. ( 9 ) THIS application is opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition to the main application as well as to the supplementary affidavit. The sum and substance of the contentions of the respondents is that the instrument was purchased by petitioner No. 1 from respondent No. 6 who is a dealer in Bangalore in India and the goods, namely MRI system was imported by respondent No. 6 and not by petitioner No. 1. The sum and substance of the contentions of the respondents is that the instrument was purchased by petitioner No. 1 from respondent No. 6 who is a dealer in Bangalore in India and the goods, namely MRI system was imported by respondent No. 6 and not by petitioner No. 1. According to the respondents, in reality the transaction relating to import of MRI system from outside India was by respondent No. 6 and its supply to the petitioner was through a different and separate transaction. According to the respondents, there was no link or contract between the petitioner No. 1 and the foreign manufacturer. In other words, according to the respondents there were factually two transactions. The first one was an importation by respondent No. 6 from foreign country, and the second one was a sale by respondent No. 6 to petitioner No. 1. ( 10 ) THE sole question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of exemption under rule 5a (2) (c) of the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or use of Goods Rules, 2001. To appreciate the aforesaid question, the provisions contained in rule 5a are quoted below :"5a. (1) Exemption from payment of tax on goods brought, or caused to be brought, into any local area by the Software Technology Parks of India.-'where any goods are brought or caused to be brought, into any local area by the Software Technology Parks of India, an autonomous society of the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India, for consumption or use in construction of an Earth Station at Kolkata, no tax shall be payable under section 6 on the entry of such goods into such local area. (2) No tax shall be payable under section 6, where the goods are brought, or caused to be brought into any local area,- (a) by the Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata from the Doordarshan Directorate, Doordarshan Central Purchase and Stores, New Delhi for use or consumption by it in catering education, information or entertainment to viewers; (b) by any person for establishing, installing, operating or maintaining any telecommunication, information technology or information technology enabled services in West Bengal; (c) by any person from any place outside the territory of India. " ( 11 ) MR. " ( 11 ) MR. Bajoria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the documents relating to the said transaction and has pointed out that the instrument in question was imported from a foreign country at the instance of the petitioner No. 1 through respondent No. 6. Mr. Bajoria points out that the bill of lading itself shows that the said machine was sent for delivery to the petitioners' residence at Kolkata. Therefore, he maintains that this is not a case where respondent No. 6 as a dealer has imported the material and the petitioner No. 1 has subsequently purchased the same from respondent No. 6. According to Mr. Bajoria, the petitioner No. 1 has, in fact, caused it to be imported through respondent No. 6. Mr. Bajoria contends that according to rule 5a (2) (c) tax shall not be payable under section 6 of the Act where the goods are brought or caused to be brought into West Bengal by any person from any place outside the territory of India. Mr. Bajoria submits that the phrase "caused to be brought" has been used by the Legislature for the purpose of bringing within its ambit those cases where a party himself has not imported the goods but caused it to be imported through another person. According to him, the present case clearly comes with the aforesaid provision. ( 12 ) MR. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has on the other hand, pointed out that the goods have really been sent to the respondent No. 6, although on account of the petitioner No. 1, but for that reason, he submits, it cannot be contended that there was any contract between the petitioner No. 1 and the foreign manufacturer. He, thus, supports the order impugned in this writ application and prays for dismissal of the writ application. ( 13 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provision of the rule, I find that the petitioner No. 1 can get the exemption mentioned above if any of the following two conditions is satisfied : (a) The petitioner No. 1 must prove that it has itself brought the goods into the local area of West Bengal from a foreign territory. or (b) It has caused the goods to be brought to West Bengal from a foreign country; in other words, the petitioner No. 1 should be the cause of importation of the goods to West Bengal. ( 14 ) IN the present case, the documents placed before this Court establish that this particular instrument has come from a foreign territory to the premises of the petitioner No. 1 at Kolkata by virtue of the order placed by the petitioner No. 1 with the respondent No. 6. Therefore, the requisition of the petitioner No. 1 has brought the machine to Kolkata from a foreign country. At this juncture, we must not confuse this transaction with one where the respondent No. 6, itself has imported the machine and the petitioner No. 1 has subsequently purchased the same from the respondent No. 6, as if it has purchased the instrument from the shop of a dealer. In the latter type of a transaction, petitioner No. 1 has the option of choosing this particular machine or any other one amongst those decorated in the showroom of the respondent No. 6. But in the present case, the foreign manufacturer has earmarked this particular machine for delivery to the premises of the petitioner No. 1 as would be reflected from the bill of lading itself. ( 15 ) I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Gupta that in order to get exemption under the aforesaid provision the purchaser must show that there was a direct contract between the foreign manufacturer and such purchaser. Such contract is possible only if the purchaser brings the instrument from the foreign country by dint of an agreement for purchase direct with the foreign manufacturer or through any agent, because, in view of section 226 of the Contract Act, such purchase through agent will have the same legal consequences as if the contract had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person. In spite of such well-known legal consequence, the Legislature used the additional phrase "or cause to be brought" purposely to give the relief of exemption even to a transaction not brought about either direct or through an agent, if the purchaser can show that at his instance the importation has been made through a third party. ( 16 ) I thus find that the respondents Nos. ( 16 ) I thus find that the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 erred in refusing exemption to the petitioner No. 1 for importation of the instrument in question notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner No. 1 brought the transaction within the meaning of the phrase "caused to be brought" appearing in rule 5a (2) (c) of the Rules. ( 17 ) I, therefore, allow this writ application. The order dated October 22, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 holding that the petitioner No. 1 was liable to pay tax under the Act amounting to Rs. 11,48,000 is set aside. ( 18 ) I make it clear that I have not considered the question whether the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Rules, 2001 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and the said question is kept open. ( 19 ) THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. W. P. No. 2450 of 2002 ( 20 ) IN this case, facts are almost similar to the earlier one with this difference that the petitioner No. 1 has imported one C. T. Scanner instead of MRI system through WIPRO G. E. Medical System Limited who is respondent No. 5 in this application. Moreover, in this case no final order has been passed by the respondents-authority and, as such, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated September 27, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2 herein. ( 21 ) IN view of the reasons assigned above in W. P. No. 1949 of 2002, the petitioner herein are also entitled to the selfsame relief. Thus, I quash the notice to show cause dated September 27, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2 and direct the respondents not to demand any tax under the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2001 on the aforesaid C. T, scanner as the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of rule 5a (2) (c) of the Rules. This writ application is thus disposed of with the above direction. There will be, however, no order as to costs. The applications are thus disposed of.