ORDER N. Kumar, J. - The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at Bangalore. The petitioner has a manufacturing unit at Pondicherry. The petitioner is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the KST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the CST Act"). The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of ATMs and manufacture, supply and trading of their parts and accessories. The petitioner also undertakes annual maintenance contracts (AMCs) for maintenance of ATMs. In so far as sale of parts and accessories of ATMs and maintenance of ATMs under the AMCs and construction of ATM rooms by the petitioner's branch in Bangalore are concerned, the petitioner has admitted its liability and filed returns for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and also 2006-07 under the KST and CST Acts. The petitioner has been duly assessed to tax on the turnover relating thereto. The petitioner has produced the assessment orders passed under section 12(2) of the KST Act and under section 9(2) of the CST Act for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. For the year 2005-06 the assessment orders have been passed under section 38 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter for short referred to as, "the KVAT Act") and the orders are also produced. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), South Zone, Bangalore, inspected the business premises of the petitioner - branch in Bangalore and seized certain books of account and documents relating to the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 pursuant to an order of seizure dated January 11, 2007, under section 28(3) of the KST Act. Thereafter, a notice under section 12A of the KST Act came to be issued for reassessment for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07. The petitioner gave a detailed reply. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded to pass the reassessment orders on March 25, 2008, under section 12A of the KST Act and under section 39 of the KVAT Act, correspondingly for the years 2002-03 to 2006-07. The respondent held that the sales of ATMs by the petitioner from Pondicherry to banks who are purchasers in Karnataka are local sales liable to tax under the KST Act and the KVAT Act. The respondent held that the sales of ATMs by the petitioner from Pondicherry to banks who are purchasers in Karnataka are local sales liable to tax under the KST Act and the KVAT Act. The respondent has also issued a demand notice claiming huge amount for the aforesaid periods. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. Sri K. P. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel assailing the impugned order contends that admittedly the goods have moved from Pondicherry to Bangalore in pursuance of a purchase order placed by the various banks with the petitioner at Pondicherry. They are delivered at the site of the banks. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay tax under the CST Act which it has paid. While bringing those ATMs into Karnataka, the petitioner has also paid entry tax after 2004. There is no liability to pay tax either under the KST Act or under the KVAT Act. The respondent by wrongly applying the ratio laid down by the apex court in 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2000] 119 STC 182 has held, as the delivery of goods took place at Bangalore it is a local sale and the petitioner has to pay tax under the KST Act and the KVAT Act. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the case and he has ignored the series of judgments of the Supreme Court which clearly held, when once there is movement of goods from one State to another, it constitutes an inter-State sale and the State Legislature has no jurisdiction or power to levy any sales tax on such sales and, therefore, he seeks for quashing of the said orders. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate in support of the impugned order contended that, as the impugned order is an appealable order, when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy it is inappropriate for this court to entertain these petitions and the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of appeal. Secondly, he contended that admittedly after the goods were dispatched from Pondicherry, they reached the banks, the consignee did not open the packages. It is the engineers of the petitioner who opened the packages, verified the machinery, after inspection certified it to be in order. Therefore, it is they who delivered the machines to the banks. Secondly, he contended that admittedly after the goods were dispatched from Pondicherry, they reached the banks, the consignee did not open the packages. It is the engineers of the petitioner who opened the packages, verified the machinery, after inspection certified it to be in order. Therefore, it is they who delivered the machines to the banks. Therefore, as the actual delivery took place at Bangalore it constitutes a local sale and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay sales tax under the KST Act and the KVAT Act. That is what precisely the assessing authority has held after reassessment and, therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out. No doubt the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of a statutory appeal. The total liability now sought to be recovered from the petitioner for the aforesaid period is around Rs. 7.47 crores and the petitioner has to deposit 50 per cent of the same without which the appeal would not be entertained. It is this point which has made them to approach this court. This is a case where the petitioner has paid the tax under the CST Act. He is not avoiding payment of tax. He is expected to pay tax either under the CST Act or KST Act and not both. The question is, is he liable to pay tax under the KST Act. The facts are not in dispute. Even the law applicable is not in dispute. The dispute is regarding application of the law to the admitted facts of the case. Under these circumstances notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy by way of an appeal, having regard to the quantum of tax levied coupled with the fact that the law on the point is well-settled and facts are not in dispute, I deem it proper to entertain these petitions, as otherwise it would occasion failure of justice. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the respondent has categorically stated the following facts which emerge from the material on record at para 8 of the impugned order : (a) Initially, the agreements are entered into with the respective banks at the bank's head quarters. For example, in the case of State Bank of India, agreement is entered into at Bombay head office and in the case of Canara Bank the agreement is made at Bangalore. For example, in the case of State Bank of India, agreement is entered into at Bombay head office and in the case of Canara Bank the agreement is made at Bangalore. (b) The agreements are entered with the banks for supply and installation of ATM machines at their branches in Karnataka so indicted by the head office of the bank. (c) The agreements entered into with respective banks are transmitted either by the company's Bangalore office or the head office at Bombay, to the Pondicherry unit for manufacture of ATMs and/or for procuring such machines as ordered by the client banks. (d) The manufactured/imported machines are stocked at Pondicherry and thereafter dispatched to the respective branches of the bank in Karnataka. The transport documents and invoices are made in the name of respective branches of the banks in Karnataka. (e) The ATM machines from Pondicherry are then dispatched to the banks against the invoices made in the name of respective branches in Karnataka. The ATM machines are transported through the transporter arranged by the company's Pondicherry manufacturing unit. (f) On the receipt of the ATM machines in Karnataka at respective branches of the bank, the same are received by the bank authorities after acknowledging the same. Thus the bank takes only the notional delivery of the machines at the respective branches. (g) The ATM machines which are received in packed conditions are neither opened nor checked either for the quantity or for the type of machines nor the conditions of machines are checked by the bank authorities at the time of receipts through the transporter. (h) Subsequently, the consignment of package of the ATM machines so received are handed over to company's representative engineers/technicians at the bank site. The company's local representative thereafter takes the delivery of the ATM machines from the bank authorities and after opening the packages and after due verification of the contents as to the quantity and the condition of machines, certify the machines as having been received in good working condition. For the above certification the ATM machines received at the bank premise, a copy of the same given to the bank authorities. (i) The insurance of the ATM machines are taken in the name of the company. For the above certification the ATM machines received at the bank premise, a copy of the same given to the bank authorities. (i) The insurance of the ATM machines are taken in the name of the company. Therefore, he concludes by saying : (a) The company is owner of goods until the machines are ultimately delivered to the client bank after due inspection and certification by the local engineers/technicians of the company; (b) The goods are put into the common carrier by the company; (c) The insurance of the goods stands in the name of the company; (d) The freight and all the incidental charges up to the delivery are borne by the company; (e) As the agreement executed by the company with the bank is for the manufacture and supply of machine, the goods were not in existence at the time when the agreements are made and therefore the agreements made are for sale of future goods; (f) The agreements entered into operated only upon delivery of goods to the client bank at their branches after inspection and certification. After recording the facts as aforesaid he then proceeds to apply the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the 20th Century's case [2000] 119 STC 182 wherein it was held, where the goods are not in existence or where there is an oral or implied transfer of the right to use goods, such transactions may be effected by the delivery of the goods in such cases the taxable event would be on the delivery of goods. According to him the ratio of the decision applies to the facts of the case and as the delivery took place at Bangalore it amounted to a local sale and, therefore, sales tax was payable. The respondent has not properly applied his mind to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. He has taken one paragraph of the final conclusion out of context and has passed the impugned order. The law on the point is well-settled. In the case of Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1975] 35 STC 445 (SC) it has been held as under : "... that the movement of crude oil from the State of Assam to the State of Bihar was an incident of the contract of sale and therefore the sales to the refinery of Barauni were sales in the course of inter-State trade. that the movement of crude oil from the State of Assam to the State of Bihar was an incident of the contract of sale and therefore the sales to the refinery of Barauni were sales in the course of inter-State trade. The Bihar Government had no jurisdiction to tax the sales under the sales tax law of that State and the petitioner was entitled to the refund of tax collected from it by the Bihar Government. No matter in which State the property in the goods passes, a sale which occasions 'movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of inter-State trade'. The inter-State movement must be the result of a covenant, express or implied, in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. It is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale." In the case of English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) it is held as under : "When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract of sale it is a sale in the course of inter-State trade falling under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale is one which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. The inter-State movement must be the result of a covenant, express or implied, in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. It is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It will be enough if the movement is in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale. ... that the appellant was one entity and it carried on business at different branches. Branches are not independent and separate entities. They are different agencies. The contract of sale was between the appellant and the Bombay buyer. When a branch of a company forwards a buyer's order to the principal factory of the company and instructs them to despatch the goods direct to the buyer and the goods are sent to the buyer under those instructions it would not be a sale between the factory and its branch. The steps taken from the beginning to the end by the Bombay branch in co-ordination with the Madras factory show that the Bombay branch was merely acting as the intermediary between the Madras factory and the buyer and that it was the Madras factory which, pursuant to the covenant in the contract of sale, caused the movement of the goods from Madras to Bombay. The inter-State movement of the goods from Madras to Bombay was the result of the contract of sale and the fact that the contract emanated from correspondence which passed between the Bombay branch and the company could not make any difference. The sale was therefore liable to be taxed under section 3(a) of the Central Act." The apex court in the case of Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 457 has held as under : "(i) that if a contract of a sale contains a stipulation for the movement of the goods from one State to another, the sale would certainly be an inter-State sale. But for the purposes of section 3(a) of the Act it is not necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. But for the purposes of section 3(a) of the Act it is not necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. A sale can be an inter-State sale, even if the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of goods from one State to another but such movement is the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or is an incident of that contract; (ii) that goods conforming to agreed specifications having been manufactured at Faridabad, the contracts of sale could be performed by the respondent only by the movement of the goods from Faridabad with the intention of delivering them to the purchasers. Although the contracts of sale did not require or provide that the goods should be moved from Faridabad to Delhi, the movement of the goods was occasioned from Faridabad to Delhi as a result or incident of the contracts of sale made in Delhi. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the sales were inter-State sales and that the turnover of such sales was assessable to sales tax under the Central Act by the sales tax authorities of Faridabad. The question as regards the nature of the sale, that is, whether it is an inter-State sale or an intra-State sale, does not depend upon the circumstance as to in which State the property in the goods passes. It may pass in either State and yet the sale can be an inter-State sale." In the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) it is held as under : "(i) that even if the customer placed an order with the branch office and the branch office communicated the terms and specifications of the order to registered office and the branch office itself was concerned with despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price, the order placed by the customer was an order placed with the company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order the manufactured goods commenced their journey from the registered office in the State of Andhra Pradesh to the branch outside the State for delivery of the goods to the customer. Both the registered office and the branch office were offices of the same company : they did not possess separate judicial personalities. The movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad was occasioned by the order placed by the customer and was an incident of the contract, and therefore, from the very beginning from Hyderabad all the way until delivery to the customer it was an inter-State movement. The sale transactions were inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Act." A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. [2002] 127 STC 280 has held as under : "The situs of the sale or purchase is wholly immaterial as regards the inter-State trade or commerce. In view of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, all that has to be seen is whether the sale or purchase (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. If the sale or purchase satisfies any one of the two requirements it is deemed to be a sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and, by virtue of articles 269 and 286, the sale or purchase would be beyond the competence of a State Legislature to tax without regard to the fact whether such a prohibition is spelled out by the description of a legislative entry in Seventh Schedule or not." Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid law declared by the Supreme Court, the question for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the sale in question is in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or is it a local sale and liable to Karnataka sales tax or Karnataka value added tax. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, reads as under : "3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, reads as under : "3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - 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, - (a) occasions the movement of the goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another." The aforesaid section states, when a sale takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It contains a deeming provision. 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 has occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during the movement from one State to another. The essence of an inter-State sale or purchase is the movement of goods from one State to another. If the movement of goods from one State to another is a result of a covenant or an incident of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State sale, no matter in which State the property in the goods passes. A sale which occasions movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of inter-State trade. The inter-State movement must be the result of a covenant express or implied in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. It is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of or incidental to the contract of sale. When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract, it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of or incidental to the contract of sale. When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract, it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale. What is decisive is whether the sale is one which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. A company may carry on business at different branches. Those different branches may be at different places. Branches have no independent and separate entity. Branches are different agencies. When a branch of a company forwards a buyer's order to the principal factory of the company and instructs them to despatch the goods direct to the buyer and the goods are sent to the buyer under those instructions it would not be a sale between the factory and its branch. If there is a conceivable link between the movement of the goods and the buyer's contract, and if in the course of inter-State movement the goods move only to reach the buyer in satisfaction of his contract of purchase and such a nexus is otherwise inexplicable, then the sale or purchase of the specific or ascertained goods ought to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce as such a sale or purchase occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another. The presence of an intermediary such as the seller's own representative or branch office, who initiated the contract may not make the matter different. Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position. The registered office and the branch office are offices of the same company and what in effect takes place is that the company from its registered office takes the goods to its branch office outside the State and arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The registered office and the branch office do not possess separate juridical personality. The question is really whether the movement of the goods from the registered office is occasioned by the order placed by the buyer or is an incident of the contract. The registered office and the branch office do not possess separate juridical personality. The question is really whether the movement of the goods from the registered office is occasioned by the order placed by the buyer or is an incident of the contract. Section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act defines "sale" as under : "2(g) 'sale', with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration, and includes, - (i) a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (ii) a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (iii) a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments; (iv) a transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (v) a supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (vi) a supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other Valuable consideration; but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods." Article 366(29A)(d) reads as under : "(29A) 'Tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes, - (d) a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." In the 20th Century Finance Corporation's case [2000] 119 STC 182 the Constitution Bench of the apex court was called upon to decide two questions : (1) What are the limitations on the power of States to levy tax on the transactions of transfer of right to use any goods ? and (2) Where is the situs of taxable event on the transfer of right to use goods under article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution ? and (2) Where is the situs of taxable event on the transfer of right to use goods under article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution ? The apex court answered the said questions in the following manner : "35. As a result of the aforesaid discussion our conclusions are these : (a) The States in exercise of power under entry 54 of List II read with article 366(29A)(d) are not competent to levy sales tax on the transfer of right to use goods, which is a deemed sale, if such sale takes place outside the State or is a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or is a sale in the course of import or export. (b) The appropriate Legislature by creating legal fiction can fix situs of sale. In the absence of any such legal fiction the situs of sale in case of transaction of transfer of right to use any goods would be the place where the property in goods passes, i.e., where the written agreement transferring the right to use is executed. (c) Where the goods are available for the transfer of right to use the taxable event on the transfer of right to use any goods is on the transfer which results in right to use and the situs of sale would be the place where the contract is executed and not where the goods are located for use. (d) In cases where goods are not in existence or where there is an oral or implied transfer of the right to use goods, such transactions may be effected by the delivery of the goods. In such cases the taxable event would be on the delivery of goods. (e) The transaction of transfer of right to use goods cannot be termed as contract of bailment as it is deemed sale within the meaning of legal fiction engrafted in clause (29A)(d) of article 366 of the Constitution wherein the location or delivery of goods to put to use is immaterial." It is while interpreting the aforesaid provisions it was held that, on a plain construction of sub-clause (d) of clause (29A), the taxable event is the transfer of the right to use the goods regardless of when or where the goods are delivered for use. What is required is that the goods should be in existence so that they may be used. What is required is that the goods should be in existence so that they may be used. And further contract in respect thereof is also required to be executed. Given that, the locus of the deemed sale is the place where the right to use the goods is transferred, where the goods are when the right to use them is transferred is of no relevance to the locus of the deemed sale. Also of no relevance to the deemed sale is where the goods are delivered for use pursuant to the transfer of the right to use them, though it may be that in the case of an oral or implied transfer of the right to use goods, it is effected by the delivery of the goods. Article 366(29A)(d) further shows that levy of tax is not on use of goods but on the transfer of the right to use goods. The right to use goods accrues only on account of the transfer of the right. In other words, right to use arises only on the transfer of such a right and unless there is transfer of right, the right to use does not arise. Therefore, it is the transfer which is sine qua non for the right to use any goods. If the goods are available, the transfer of the right to use takes place when the contract in respect thereof is executed. As soon as the contract is executed, the right is vested in the lessee. Thus, the situs of taxable event of such a tax would be the transfer which legally transfers the right to use goods. The aforesaid clause (a) categorically states, the States in exercise of power under entry 54 of List II read with article 366(29A)(d) are not competent to levy sales tax on the transfer of right to use goods, which is a deemed sale, if such sale takes place outside the State or is a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or is a sale in the course of import or export. Therefore, when admittedly the sale in question is in the course of an inter-State trade the State had no power to levy any sales tax at all. Therefore, when admittedly the sale in question is in the course of an inter-State trade the State had no power to levy any sales tax at all. The very judgment on which reliance is placed by the assessing authority makes it clear that in the instant case the KST Act has no application and no tax could have been levied. Further the said judgment was concerned about the liability to pay tax in respect of a transfer of the right to use any goods and not a transfer of property in goods under a written contract. Unfortunately though several judgments of the apex court are cited before him, though he has referred to the same, there is no proper application of mind and erroneously he rejects all those judgments on the ground that they are not applicable to the facts of the case. The assessing authority has misconstrued the aforesaid judgments. The goods should be in existence, so that it may be used. The levy of tax is not on use of goods but on the transfer of the right to use goods. The right to use goods accrues only on account of the transfer of right. Unless there is a transfer of such right, the right to use does not arise. It is the transfer which is sine qua non for the right to use goods. Therefore, in cases where the goods are not in existence, and the right to use such nonexistent goods is the subject-matter of sale, such transactions may be effected by the delivery of the goods. In such cases the taxable event would be on the delivery of the goods. Therefore, situs of sale in such cases would be the place where the delivery of goods takes place. But, in the case of non-existent goods, the goods after coming into existence, i.e., after the manufacture of such goods, are moved from one State to another for the purpose of delivering the same to the purchaser, it would be an inter-State sale. Because, it is not a transfer of right to use goods, but transfer of goods itself. In the case on hand it is not a case of transfer of right to use the goods. It is also not a case of oral or implied transfer of the rights to use goods. Because, it is not a transfer of right to use goods, but transfer of goods itself. In the case on hand it is not a case of transfer of right to use the goods. It is also not a case of oral or implied transfer of the rights to use goods. There is a written contract between the parties for manufacture and supply of goods. The branch office at Bangalore, forwarded an order for transfer of goods upon receipt by them from the buyer to their factory at Pondicherry. The goods were manufactured according to the specifications of the buyer. Thereafter the goods were handed over to a carrier who delivered the goods at the buyer's place. The technicians at the registered office at Bangalore took delivery of the consignment at the buyer's place, opened the containers, checked and after it is found to be all right in all respects handed over the goods to the buyer. The buyer in turn has made the payment directly to the factory at Pondicherry. Though the goods for which orders were placed were not in existence at the time of placing of the orders, it is not a case of transfer of a right to use the goods. It is a case of sale of the goods. The placing of the orders occasioned the movement of the goods from Pondicherry to Bangalore. The goods, after they were manufactured, thus came into existence at Pondicherry and were moved to Bangalore. Therefore, it is immaterial where the goods were delivered. What is decisive is whether the sale is one which occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another and the said movement is the result of covenant or incident of a contract of sale. In this case, there is a movement of goods from one State to another in terms of a contract of sale. It is an inter-State sale. The situs of the sale or purchase is immaterial in respect of inter-State trade or commerce. If the sale or purchase occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another then it constitutes an inter-State sale and the State Legislature has no competence to tax such sale as the sale is taxed under the CST Act. The KST Act or the KVAT Act is not applicable to such sale. If the sale or purchase occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another then it constitutes an inter-State sale and the State Legislature has no competence to tax such sale as the sale is taxed under the CST Act. The KST Act or the KVAT Act is not applicable to such sale. The impugned orders passed are therefore contrary to the settled legal position and the statutory provisions and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly I pass the following order : Order (i) Writ petitions are allowed; (ii) The impugned orders are quashed; (iii) No costs. Case Referred : Oil India Ltd. V. The Superintendent Of Taxes And Others. English Electric Company Of India Ltd. V. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer And Others. Union Of India And Another V. K. G. Khosla And Co. Ltd. And Others. Sahney Steel And Press Works Ltd. And Another V. Commercial Tax Officer And Others. 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. And Another V. State Of Maharashtra. (And Other Writ Peti.... State Of A. P. V. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. And Others. National Thermal Pow.... ACTS : Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 = Section 2(g),Section 3,Section 3(a),Section 9(2) Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 = Section 12(2),Section 12A,Section 28(3),Section 38