JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner in both the writ petitions has raised a grievance that respondent no. 2, Bhagalpur Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, being an instrumentality or enterprise of the Government of Bihar should have furnished Form-IX under the Bihar Finance Act and that would have saved the petitioner from sales tax liability to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 6 lacs approximately in each of the transactions covered by the two writ petitions. 3. The transactions of sale of yarns and similar goods by the writ petitioner to respondent no. 2 are of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. 4. We have been taken through the provisions of Section 11 of the Bihar Finance Act, particularly sub-section (4) thereof, to show that if as a selling dealer petitioner could produce a declaration in Form-IX from the buying dealer, then the liability to pay sales tax would be upon the buying dealer and not upon the petitioner and hence respondent no. 2 as a buying dealer is under legal obligation to furnish required Form-IX for the transactions in question. 5. On facts, respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and it has been submitted that respondent no. 2 is lying idle as a sick unit since last several years and is being managed by the Administrator, who is respondent no. 3, the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. We have only applied ourselves to the issue whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case that respondent no. 2 is under legal obligation to furnish Form-IX and petitioner is legally entitled to have the requisite Form-IX for the transactions in question so that it may be saved from the liability of the sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act. 7. On going through the provisions in the Act and the Rules, we find that had the petitioner been able to produce Form- IX for concerned transactions, he would have claimed exemptions from the sales tax and the liability might have passed on to respondent no. 2 if it was the ultimate seller. But those provisions do not create any legal obligation upon respondent no. 2 if it was the ultimate seller. But those provisions do not create any legal obligation upon respondent no. 2 Bhagalpur Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited to invariably supply Form-IX to the supplier like the petitioner without there being any provisions to that effect in any contract or agreement. Admittedly, there is no written agreement governing transactions in question. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out any legal right so as to be able to invoke writ jurisdiction in his favour. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not think it necessary to consider many other submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed.