JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, C.J. : As all the writ petitions raise iden¬tical question of facts and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of brevity, the scope of challenge in various writ applications are narrated hereunder : (I) O.J.C. No.1125 of 1993 (Assessment year 1984-85) M/s. Oil India Ltd. sought to challenge the order dated 29.1.1993 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack in Revision Case No.PU-1186-92-93 as well as the original assessment order for the year 1984-85, appellate order and the consequential notice of recovery. (II) O.J.C. No.4879 of 1998 (Assessment year 1985-86) M/s. Oil India Ltd. sought to challenge the order of assess¬ment for the year 1985-86 and the consequential demand and the order of attachment. (III) O.J.C. No.4670 of 1998 (Assessment Year 1986-87) (a) M/s. Oil India Ltd. sought to challenge the order of assess¬ment for the year 1986-87 and the consequential demand of Sales Tax and Addl. Sales Tax apart from the challenge to the order of attachment. (b) O.J.C. No.4674 of 1998 (Assessment Year 1986-87 revised) M/s. Oil India Ltd. sought to challenge the revised order dated 1.2.1998 and the consequential fresh order of demand dated 9.2.1998 for the assessment year 1986-87. (IV) O.J.C. No.4675 of 1998 (Assessment Year 1987-88) M/s. Oil India Ltd. sought to challenge the order of assess¬ment for the year 1987-88 and the consequential demand of Sales Tax apart from challenge to the order of attachment. A conjoint reading of the facts narrated in various writ applications, reveal that in the first year of assessment in which the dispute regarding the nature of transaction/contract and the jurisdiction arose, was the assessment year 1984-85. Therefore, it is essential to deal with the facts, pleading and development of litigation of that case, in detail, since, the determination of the same would govern the issues raised in the subsequent writ applications for subsequent assessment years. 3. From the facts of O.J.C. No.1125 of 1993 it appears that the Sales Tax Officer-cum-Tax Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar raised a demand of Rs.2,45,77,613/- for assessment year 1984-85 on the petitioner-M/s. Oil India Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act and a Government of India Undertaking. 3. From the facts of O.J.C. No.1125 of 1993 it appears that the Sales Tax Officer-cum-Tax Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar raised a demand of Rs.2,45,77,613/- for assessment year 1984-85 on the petitioner-M/s. Oil India Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act and a Government of India Undertaking. The said order with the aforesaid demand was purportedly issued pursuant to a notice under Section 13-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The said demand was raised on the alleged sales tax dues of an assessee known as Perforations Maritimas Maxicanas, SA (hereinafter referred to as “PMM,SA”). While raising the demand against the said PMM,SA the petitioner has been held to be a defaulter under the said Act and the Rules and thus notice of recovery-cum-attachment was issued. 4. The material facts of the case are, that by a contract dated 17.12.1982 which was extended by a subsequent contract dated 26.9.1985 between the petitioner and the PMM,SA, the peti¬tioner, which was entrusted with the work of drilling exploratory oil wells in the Bay of Bengal, got the same wells drilled through PMM,SA. The said drilling operation with the drilling vessels of PMM,SA called AZTECA was carried on in the Bay of Bengal. It was admittedly carried on beyond 12 nautical miles from the Bay of Bengal and after the said drilling operations were completed the said vessels left the Country in the year 1986. 5. During the said drilling operation by PMM,SA, Sales Tax Officer-cum-Tax Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar assessed the said PMM,SA for payment of sales tax dues for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 on the alleged basis of purported transfer of right in favour of the petitioner company for the use of the drilling vessels as AZTECA. 6. Coming to know of such alleged sales tax liability fastened on PMM,SA, the petitioner company wrote to them to take appropriate steps by challenging such orders and alternatively asked the said company to authorize the petitioner company to take steps on its behalf. 6. Coming to know of such alleged sales tax liability fastened on PMM,SA, the petitioner company wrote to them to take appropriate steps by challenging such orders and alternatively asked the said company to authorize the petitioner company to take steps on its behalf. Again by another letter dated 4.1.1991 the petitioner company wrote to the said PMM,SA, inter alia, inform¬ing them that the contract entered between the parties clearly spelt out that the “right to use” the specialized drilling Jack up Rig called as AZTECA at all relevant time was with PMM,SA and there was no transfer of right to the petitioner company and therefore there cannot be even any deemed sale which could be brought under the provisions of taxation law for levy of sales tax. The petitioner it clear that the said Ring “AZTECA” for all practical purposes was under the control of PMM,SA and they were in custody of the same. The petitioner made it clear that they have no obligation under the contract to look after the sales tax cases on their behalf and much less any responsibility for reim¬bursement of the tax demands of Sales Tax Authority. Thereafter the Sales Tax Authority on 3rd January, 1992 issued a notice purportedly under Section 13-A(1) of the said Act asking the petitioner to pay the so called tax amount in whole or in part thereof from the money which is due or would become due to the petitioner from PMM,SA or if any money is to be paid by the petitioner to PMM,SA or if the same amount is held by the peti¬tioner on account of PMM,SA. The said letter of the Sales Tax Authority was immediately replied by the petitioner on 10th January, 1992 stating as follows; “That on the date of the receipt of your notice under refer¬ence, no money was due or held y us and no money is becoming due or being due or held by us to or for M/s. PMM,SA. That your understanding that some money is due or may become due from us to M/s. PMM,SA or we hold or may hold subsequent to the issue of the notice under reference, some money for or on account of the said dealer, namely M/s. PMM,SA is completely incorrect. We have no such money due or payable to M/s. PMM,SA.” 7. That your understanding that some money is due or may become due from us to M/s. PMM,SA or we hold or may hold subsequent to the issue of the notice under reference, some money for or on account of the said dealer, namely M/s. PMM,SA is completely incorrect. We have no such money due or payable to M/s. PMM,SA.” 7. Thereafter another letter was issued to the petitioner by the Sales Tax Authority on 5.2.1992 stating therein that PMM,SA is in arrear of sales tax amounting to the aforesaid amount relating to the period 1984-85 to 1987-88 and the peti¬tioner was requested to deposit the said amount available with the petitioner on the basis of deduction from PMM,SA towards Income Tax. 8. Another letter was written by the Commercial Tax Offi¬cer, Bhubaneswar II Circle, Bhubaneswar to the petitioner company on 12.3.1992 on the aforesaid basis. The petitioner also gave to the Commercial Tax officer a reply dated 31st March, 1992 disput¬ing the claim of the sales tax authority and in the said letter it was pointed out by the petitioner that PMM,SA cannot be as¬sessed as an unregistered dealer under the provisions of the said Act and it was also pointed out that the alleged transactions of drilling operations were not carried on within the territorial limits of the State of Orissa. The petitioner also denied that as a result of the aforesaid transactions any payment is likely to be received by the petitioner company on account of alleged transfer of right to use the drilling Rig AZTECA by PMM,SA to M/s. Oil India. They again wrote a letter to the petitioner on 3.9.1992 asking the petitioner to produce all the books of ac¬counts and documents for the satisfaction of concerned Sales Tax Officer on the point that the petitioner did not hold any money on account of the dealer at the time the notice was served on the petitioner. The said notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sales Tax Officer in purported exercise of power under Section 13-A(1) of the said Act. Thereafter certain correspondences followed between the parties. Ultimately the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Orissa High Court by filing OJC No.7250 of 1992 challeng¬ing the illegal notice issued by the Sales Tax Authority for alleged recovery of money. Thereafter certain correspondences followed between the parties. Ultimately the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Orissa High Court by filing OJC No.7250 of 1992 challeng¬ing the illegal notice issued by the Sales Tax Authority for alleged recovery of money. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to quash the notice by order dated 9.10.1992 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Sales Tax Officer on 20th Octo¬ber, 1992 and to place all materials in respect of the controver¬sies as aforesaid. 9. Pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared on 20.10.1992 and placed to the satisfaction of the Sales Tax Authorities all the books of accounts in original and the invoices to show the payment PMM,SA being in dollars, was converted into rupee. It was made clear that M/s. Oil India does not hold any money on account of PMM,SA other than the amount held up by them for income tax purposes. Thereafter on 27.10.1992 an order was passed by the concerned Sales Tax Officer along with a demand notice asking the petitioner to pay the said amount and a recovery-cum-attachment notice on the same day was issued on the petitioner. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner immediately filed an objec¬tion petition to the said notice and asked for revocation of the order. The same was filed on 11.11.1992 but as the Sales Tax Authority did not withdraw the same, a second writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the High Court which was numbered as OJC No.8099 of 1992 in which the petitioner was directed to file a revision before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa challeng¬ing the aforesaid order of demand and attachment. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa on 21.11.1992 in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court. By an order dated 30.11.1992 the Commissioner directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.1.5 crores during the pendency of the revision petition. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed a further writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was numbered as OJC No.9240 of 1992. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 21.12.1992 extended the time of payment till 31st March, 1993 and further directed the Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition within that time. The Commis¬sioner dismissed the revision petition by order dated 29.1.1993 and confirmed the order of attachment notice dated 27.10.1992. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 21.12.1992 extended the time of payment till 31st March, 1993 and further directed the Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition within that time. The Commis¬sioner dismissed the revision petition by order dated 29.1.1993 and confirmed the order of attachment notice dated 27.10.1992. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued by opposite parties on the petitioner asking him to show cause why the attachment order will not be made. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice on 8.2.1993 and challenging the said notice of demand the petitioner company has filed the present writ petition being O.J.C. No.1125 of 1932 and this Hon’ble Court directed the peti¬tioner to make payment of Rs.70,00,000/- to the State as an interim arrangement pending disposal of the writ petition. 10. In the instant case, the opposite parties relied on Clauses 6.5 and 6.6 of the drilling agreement between the par¬ties in support of its contention. Clause-6.5 of the said con¬tract runs as follows :- “6.05 CUSTOMS, EXCISE DUTIES & OTHER CHARGES- Operator shall pay All Indian Statutory Import or Export charges or customs or excise duties leviable in India including, but not limited to local sales taxes, added value taxes, clearing agent’s fees, or the similar taxes or fees leviable in India that are levied on contractor’s equipment only arising out of the operations of the drilling unit, provided, however, that in case the clearing agents’ fees exceed the normal rates of the operator, the con¬tractor shall obtain operator’s prior approval. Contractor shall provide at the request of, and at no cost to operator, adequate documentation and expatriate assistance at the custom office for proper assessment of duties and clearances of goods and equipment required for the operations. All customs duties or the duties or imports or any other charges or dues on personal effects of contractor’s/contractor’s subcontractors, employees including effects supplied by contrac¬tor/contractor’s subcontractors for the use of their personnel either on rig or on shore will be at contractor’s / contractor’s subcontractors account. Custom duties on personal effects of contractor’s/contrac¬tor’s subcontractors employees including effects supplied by contractor/contractor’s subcontractors for the use of their personnel, either on rig or on shore will be at contractor’s/con¬tractor’s subcontractors cost. Custom duties on personal effects of contractor’s/contrac¬tor’s subcontractors employees including effects supplied by contractor/contractor’s subcontractors for the use of their personnel, either on rig or on shore will be at contractor’s/con¬tractor’s subcontractors cost. Sales tax, octroi duties or other local taxes on purchases made by the contractor or his subcontractors in India shall be borne by the contractor or his subcontractor.” 11. Under the said agreement Oil India is called the opera¬tor and PMM,SA called the contractor. The said agreement was executed in Mexico. The learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the said clause 6.5 sales tax liability of PMM,SA can be fastened on the petitioner company. On the other hand it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the drilling contract having been signed in foreign country and the drilling operation having been executed 12.5 nautical miles away from the Paradeep coast of Orissa State, the provisions of the said Act are not territorially to the are where such operations were carried on. Learned counsel also submitted that under the provisions of Territorial, Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Central Government has the power to notify, with such restrictions and modification as it may think proper, the said act to a transac¬tion. In the instant case, there is no such notification issued under the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner fur¬ther relied on the provisions of Articles 265, 286 and 297 of the Constitution in order to contend that in the facts of the case entire assumption of jurisdiction by the sales tax authori¬ties is without any legal sanction. It was contended that in any event under the amended provision of Section 2(g) (iv) of the said Act, the transfer of right to use in the instant case is not attracted and the alleged transfer of right to use AZTECA would not amount to sale. 12. The learned counsel for the taxing authority on the other hand relied on the provision of Section 13-A of the said Act and also on clauses 6.5 and 6.6 of the agreement. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the taxing authority on the other hand relied on the provision of Section 13-A of the said Act and also on clauses 6.5 and 6.6 of the agreement. 13. It was also contended by the Revenue that when demand notices for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 were received by PMM,SA, it issued a letter dated 9.2.1987 to the petitioner informing it about the orders and the demands made therein and it is stated that in terms of contract between the PMM,SA and the petitioner it is obligatory for the petitioner to pay all the statutory dues including the local taxes. The Revenue very much relied on the said letter dated 9.2.1987 as also the letter dated 7.4.1990 issued by the petitioner to PMM,SA whereby the petitioner, according to the Revenue, agreed to bear the burden of Orissa Sales Tax levied by the Orissa Sales Tax author¬ities. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that once the appellate authority rejects the appeal from the assessment orders and confirms the order of assessment, those orders are final and in the absence of any challenge to the same by PMM,SA, the peti¬tioners cannot challenge the same. Therefore, the Sales Tax Offi¬cer, Bhubaneswar in exercise of his powers under Section 13-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act rightly issued notice to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of tax. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 26.7.1993 is very pertinent in this context. By the said order, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by the petitioner, namely O.J.C. No.8216 of 1992 and O.J.C. No.8219 of 1992. In the said writ petitions, legality of the order of as¬sessment for the periods ending 31.12.1986 and 31.7.1987 and for the assessment year 1987-88 which was made in respect of PMM,SA was assailed. In the said order, the Hon’ble High Court has noted the contention of the writ petitioner that it cannot file the appeal against the assessments. To that contention, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision before the Commissioner and in view of such alternative remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained. 14. To that contention, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision before the Commissioner and in view of such alternative remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained. 14. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court held that the correctness of the assessment made against the PMM,SA cannot be assailed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Court also noted that if the authorities acted without jurisdiction in making the assessment, the same should have been assailed by the assessee itself. The learned Court found the petitioner has no right of appeal. It also noted that already revision petition had been filed by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner should have approached the Commis¬sioner by way of revision for the assessment year in question. 15. In the order dated 26.7.1993, learned Judges of the Division Bench held that even if the petitioner cannot file an appeal under Section 23 (1) of the said Act, but there is no prohibition on the petitioner in moving the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa under Section 23 (4) (a) of the said Act. The view of the learned Division Bench of this Court is that there is no restriction for filing a revision before the Commissioner. The learned Judges of the Division Bench held that Section 23(4) (a) of the act makes it clear that if any person is aggrieved by an assessment order in respect of which an appeal could not have been filed, he can move the Commissioner for interference by way of revision. The learned Judges very clearly held, the only requirement is that the person making the motion should be ag¬grieved by the order. 16. Considering all those legal aspects, the Division Bench made it clear that if the petitioner files the revision application before the Commissioner and also files an application for condonation of delay, the delay should be condoned and the revision application shall be admitted and disposed of in accord¬ance with law. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a revision petition. 17. 16. Considering all those legal aspects, the Division Bench made it clear that if the petitioner files the revision application before the Commissioner and also files an application for condonation of delay, the delay should be condoned and the revision application shall be admitted and disposed of in accord¬ance with law. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a revision petition. 17. It appears from the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 29.1.1993 that the said authority took detailed note of the contentions raised by the petitioner before it, but refrained from deciding the said issue by holding as follows : “But such issues have been brought in here for examination which are beyond my jurisdiction as envisaged U/s. 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and read with Rule-79 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. In view of the above, I pronounced no opinions on these and constitutional issues as other designated appellate for and Courts are available.” We are constrained to note that the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Sales Tax has clearly not complied with the direction of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.7.1993 passed in O.J.C. No.8216 of 1992 and O.J.C. No.8219 of 1992. On a perusal of the order passed by this Court, it would be clear that the Division Bench of this Court came to hold that the petitioner, not being an assessee, has no right to file an appeal and the only remedy which is available to the petitioner is the remedy of filing a revision. This direction of this Court passed earlier was based upon the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the petitioner has an alternative remedy byway of revision before the Commissioner. This Court while accepting the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue, issued the direction dated 26.7.1993 specifically, permitting the petitioner to file a revision before the Commissioner. We are of the view that, ignoring of such a direction and refraining from expressing any opinion, clearly tantamount to abdication of the obligation/duty of the Revisional Authority to decide the issues brought before it. We are of the view that, ignoring of such a direction and refraining from expressing any opinion, clearly tantamount to abdication of the obligation/duty of the Revisional Authority to decide the issues brought before it. While expressing our an¬guish in the manner in which, the Revisional Authority has sought to evade or avoid its lawful obligation, of deciding all the issues brought before it in revisional application, we are of the view that, all questions that were raised by the petitioner, including the question of territorial jurisdiction and also the question as to whether the transaction in question constitutes a sale or not within the meaning of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, were raised but have not been decided/answered. Therefore, the revi¬sional order dated 29.1.1993, so far as it held that the peti¬tioner has a right to appeal and without filing an appeal, the petitioner cannot raise all the questions which it has raised is an erroneous finding and is accordingly, set aside. 18. All the questions raised in the revision petition are remanded to the revisional authority for decision. The matter is therefore remanded for a fresh decision by the revisional author¬ity in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 26.7.1993 passed in O.J.C. No.8216 of 1992 and O.J.C. No.8219 of 1992. As the matter is an old one, such decision may be taken by the authority concerned as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of service of this order upon the said authority. 19. Since the petitioner has already paid substantial amount pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner is not called upon to pay any further amount till the revision proceedings are disposed of. 20. In view of the directions given hereinabove, remanding the main issue for re-determination by the Revisional Authority for the assessment year 1984-85, we are of the view that the demands raised pursuant to the impugned orders of assessment passed for the years, i.e., 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 (in O.J.C. Nos.1125 of 1993, 4879 of 1998, 4670 of 1998, 4674 of 1998 and 4675 of 1998 respectively) shall not be enforced against the petitioner, till a determination is made by the Revisional Authority for the first year in question i.e., 1984-85, as di¬rected hereinabove. We further make it clear that the result of ‘re-determination’ made by the Revisional Authority for the year 1984-85 shall apply to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, and the obligation to pay and/or the right to claim refund, shall flow therefrom. 21. All the writ applications are thus disposed of. There is no order as to costs. I. MAHANTY, J., I agree Applications disposed of.