JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J. Two assessment orders one passed by the Sales Tax Authority in Delhi and the other by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority Gurgaon, have been assailed in the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner against both these orders primarily is that the same result in double taxation in as much as the same transaction is sought to be taxed twice. The controversy arises in the following circumstances : The petitioner is a contractor registered as a dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999. It is also registered in the adjoining State of Haryana under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. Contracts for laying and repairing roads in Delhi have been alloted to the petitioner by different agencies like NDMC, MCD, CPWD and PWD. Since no hot mix plant can be set up in the National Capital Territory of Delhi the petitioner has set up its plants in the State of Haryana from where it brings the hot mix (Rori and Bajri mixed with Bitumen) to Delhi for being used in laying roads here. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the Assessing Authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act treated the transfer of hot mix from Haryana to Delhi in connection with the execution of the works contract as a inter-state sale and determined the taxable turn over of the petitioner at Rs. 3,66,45,948/- giving rise to a tax liability of Rs. 14,65,838/-. For the same year, the assessing authorities under the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999 accepted the petitioners request for composition under section 6 read with section 7 of the said Act and recovered a sum of Rs. 32,66,867/- by way of tax deducted at source on a taxable turn over of Rs. 8,16,71,682.50. The petitioner thus paid tax on the same transaction not only in the State of Haryana where the transaction was treated as an inter-State sale but also in Delhi where the same has been treated to be an intra-State sale. 32,66,867/- by way of tax deducted at source on a taxable turn over of Rs. 8,16,71,682.50. The petitioner thus paid tax on the same transaction not only in the State of Haryana where the transaction was treated as an inter-State sale but also in Delhi where the same has been treated to be an intra-State sale. Aggrieved by the recovery of taxes in both the States what, according to the petitioner, is a single transaction by which the petitioner brings hot mix from Haryana to be used in Delhi, the petitioner appears to have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of a proper petition. That is precisely how the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner has not only challenged the legality of the orders of assessment made against it by the authorities in Delhi and Haryana but also prayed for a writ of prohibition, restraining them from recovering and or assessing the petitioner twice on the same transaction. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record. It was argued, on behalf of the petitioner, that aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assessing Authorities concerned and impugned in this petition, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority constituted under section 19 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The purpose underlying the filing of the said appeal, it was contended, was to invite an authoritative determination of whether the transaction in question was an inter-state or intra-state and whether it would attract tax in the State of Haryana or in Delhi. Since, however, the Authority was not, according to the petitioner, functional no progress was made in that direction. After the authority became functional, the appeal filed by the petitioner was transferred by it to the Haryana Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for hearing and disposal where the same is presently pending. Since, however, the Authority was not, according to the petitioner, functional no progress was made in that direction. After the authority became functional, the appeal filed by the petitioner was transferred by it to the Haryana Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for hearing and disposal where the same is presently pending. It was submitted that this Court could itself determine the nature of the transaction and the tax liability arising from the same instead of waiting for an adjudication from the Tribunal especially when the Delhi Administration was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal in Haryana and even if it is impleaded as a party respondent to the said proceedings it may not appear to facilitate a proper adjudication of the issue that arises for consideration. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gail India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, (2005) 10 SCC 192 in support of the submission that determination of the nature of transaction in cases where two States claim the right to recover taxes on the same transaction was necessary. On behalf of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, it was, on the other hand, submitted by Mr. Mahna that the challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Authority in Delhi was misconceived in as much as the petitioner had at no stage questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities in Delhi to charge tax on the transaction on the basis of composition which the petitioner had prayed for under section 6 of the Act. He submitted that Haryana Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the correctness of the order of assessment made by authorities in Delhi. He further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in substance was against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority in Haryana in which event the petitioner ought to prefer an appeal against the said order before the prescribed Appellate Authority and resort to the remedies available to him under the law if the Appellate Authority did not resolve the issue favourably. On behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6, it was, contended by learned counsel appearing for them that no appeal could be maintained against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authorities before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority constituted under section 19 of the Central Sales Tax Act. On behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6, it was, contended by learned counsel appearing for them that no appeal could be maintained against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authorities before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority constituted under section 19 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It was submitted by him that an appeal under section 20 of the Central Sales Tax Act as amended by Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005 was maintainable before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority only against an order passed by highest appellate authority of a State by whatever name called. It was urged that before the matter could be taken to the highest Appellate Authority in the State of Haryana, the petitioner shall have to file an appeal against the assessment orders under section 33 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act and then only take the matter up to the Tribunal in that State. Transfer of the appeal by the Central Sales Tax Authority to Haryana Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was, in that view, of no avail to the petitioner who ought to have preferred a proper appeal to the competent authority to have the matter sorted out. The petitioners grievance as seen above is primarily against, what according to him, amounts to double taxation of the same transaction by two different authorities functioning under two different enactments in the States of Haryana and Delhi. In Gail Indias case (supra) also a similar situation had arisen. Gail India Ltd. Was supplying, through pipelines, Natural Gas, purchased by it from Oil and Natural Gas Commission, from the State of Gujarat to the purchasers in Gujarat and various other States. The transfer of gas through this pipeline network, according to Gail, as only a stock transfer in respect of which local sales tax had been paid not only in Gujarat but also in the States in which the sales ultimately took place. Central Sales Tax was all the same assessed and demanded from Gail by treating the sales as inter-state sales. Relying upon an earlier decision of the apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 10 , Gail approached the Supreme Court for a direction similar to that issued in Ashok Leylands case. The Court held that the questions raised by Gail were not pure questions of law. Relying upon an earlier decision of the apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 10 , Gail approached the Supreme Court for a direction similar to that issued in Ashok Leylands case. The Court held that the questions raised by Gail were not pure questions of law. Factual aspects observed their Lordships required resolution by a fact finding Tribunal. The Court, accordingly, remanded the matter for being heard and disposed of by the Gujarat Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for determining the issues indicated by their Lordships after notice to the States concerned. The Court observed : "Be that as it may, we are of the view that it is not a pure question of law which may be decided by this Court at this stage. There are issues which would need resolution by a fact-finding tribunal. Following the decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. as well as in K.C.P. Ltd. we remand the matter for being heard and disposed of by the Gujarat Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which will determine the issues indicated herein in accordance with the provisions of Rule 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, i.e. after notice in the appropriate form to the States concerned to which, as claimed by the appellant, payment of local sales tax has been made. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within a period of four months." A similar direction was issued in Civil Appeals Nos. 926-29/05 and connected matters, where the appellant was exporting Aluminium through Vishkhapatnam and in which also the Court felt that the question whether the transaction was inter-state sale or intra-state sale, ought to be heard and decided by a fact finding Tribunal. The Court held : "We are of the opinion that the issue whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or intra-State sales and if so whether the said had taken place in Andhra Pradesh are issues which should be decided as a question of fact initially by a fact-finding tribunal. It is true that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 21-E and 21-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act the appellant could not have approached the Tribunal or the High Court. It is true that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 21-E and 21-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act the appellant could not have approached the Tribunal or the High Court. However, relying upon the decision of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India as well as the decision of this Court in K.C.P. Ltd. v. State of M.P., we transfer these matters to the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for determining the aforesaid issues and any other issues which are appropriately raised at the instance of the parties. Pending the determination by the Tribunal the interim order granted by this Court on 22-3-2002 will continue to operate. We make it clear that before the Tribunal takes any decision the Union of India and the State of Orissa must be given notice." The position in the present case is no different. The nature of the transaction in the instant case is, according to the authorities in the State of Haryana, an inter-State sale, while, according to the authorities in Delhi the same is an intra-State Sale. This conflict requires to be resolved. The question is how to do so. In the cases decided by the Supreme Court, the conflict has been resolved by transferring the matter to a fact-finding Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to examine the matter after notice to the parties concerned. A similar approach shall have to be adopted in the present case also with a suitable modification. A direction to the Central Sales Tax Authority to straightway examine the issue may not help having regard to the fact that certain factual aspects may have to be determined before a legally accurate view is taken on the subject. This exercise cannot obviously be done at the appellate stage by the Central Sales Tax Authority. A reference to the Tribunal in Haryana is beset with difficulty involving questions of jurisdiction of this Court to issue a direction to an authority outside Delhi but also on account of fact that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed by an Assessing Authority. A reference to the Tribunal in Haryana is beset with difficulty involving questions of jurisdiction of this Court to issue a direction to an authority outside Delhi but also on account of fact that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed by an Assessing Authority. What may still be possible is an adjudication of the issue before the competent authority in the State of Haryana at the first Appellate stage where the petitioner may prefer an appeal impleading the State of Delhi also as a party to the same. In fairness to learned counsel for the petitioner we must mention that she had no objection to that course being followed. She was ready to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority against the orders of assessment made by the Assessing Authority in Haryana impleading Delhi Administration as a party-respondent to the same. In such an event, the Delhi Administration could be directed to appear before the Appellate Authority and present its version so that the issue regarding the nature of the transaction is resolved in presence of all concerned. Mr. Mahna was agreeable to that course being followed if a direction was issued to that effect by this Court. The fact that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Central Sales Tax Authority which now stands transferred to the Haryana Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is not of much significance. We say so because even after the said transfer the Tribunal may not be able to entertain an appeal directly against an order of assessment. In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions : (i) The petitioner may, if so advised, prefer an appeal, if not already preferred against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and implead to the said appeal Delhi Administration as a party-respondent. (ii) If an appeal as in (i) above is preferred by the petitioner, the Delhi Administration shall appear before the Appellate Authority and before every authority to which the matter may thereafter be taken to ensure that a proper adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioner including the question whether the transaction is an inter-State or intra State sale takes place at an early date. (iii) Parties aggrieved by the adjudication of issues by the Appellate Authority including the Tribunal shall be free to seek proper redress in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. (iv) The appeal which the petitioner may file shall be heard and disposed of early but not later than six months from the date the same is presented before competent Appellate Authority. (v) For a period of six months and till such time the appeal is finally disposed of by the Appellate Authority the interim-order made by this Court on 7th February 2006 shall continue to remain operative. (vi) No costs.