JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner, Assam State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, the ASTC), has filed this writ petition impugning deduction of sales tax at source from the bills of the petitioner on the basis of the direction of the Finance Department, Government of Assam. The deductions were being made by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, "the ONGC") in respects of bills submitted by the petitioner for hiring and using buses belonging to ASTC. While entertaining the writ petition, this court by order dated June 10, 2004 restrained the respondents from making any tax deduction at source from the bills of the petitioner. Although the writ petition was pending for the last more than seven years, the Government of the Assam in the Finance Department has not filed any counter-affidavit resisting the plea taken by the petitioner. Be it stated here that the ONGC in its affidavit-in-opposition filed on June 20, 2011 has supported the case of the petitioner. Be it also stated here that the petitioner has brought on record certain developments that took place during pendency of the writ petition. In this connection, it has filed an additional affidavit on June 7, 2011. 2. In the said additional affidavit it has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition a show-cause notice dated September 7, 2004 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Jorhat alleging that the petitioner was rendering taxable service to the ONGC by providing their vehicles and since long such service had fallen under "tour operator", but the petitioner did not take registration from the jurisdictional authority of Central Excise as required under the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from April 1, 2000 onwards. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to pay service tax of Rs. 1,12,532 with further provision of charging interest and penal provision. The show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner was rejected by order dated December 4, 2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Guwahati. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to pay service tax of Rs. 1,12,532 with further provision of charging interest and penal provision. The show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner was rejected by order dated December 4, 2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Guwahati. The said appeal was rejected by the order dated December 18, 2007 holding that by no stretch of imagination it could be inferred from the agreement between the parties that the petitioner had planned, scheduled, organised or arranged tours for ONGC and thus, the petitioner cannot be brought under the definition of "tour operator" as per the provision of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Referring to the provision of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, it is the stand of the petitioner that there being no transfer of right to use any goods for the purpose of levy sales tax, direction for deduction of tax at source could not have been issued. It has been contended that article 366(29A)(d) stipulates that levy of tax is not on sale of goods, but on transfer of right to use goods. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the ONGC, it has been stated that essence of the contract agreement is not the minibus hiring form the ASTC, but a covenant to employ the same for rendering the services mentioned in the agreement, i.e., carrying ONGC's school children at Nazira, Lakwa and Sivasagar and the transaction does not amount to transfer of the right to use the minibus in favour of the ONGC. It has also been contended that there is no delivery of the bus by the ASTC to ONGC inasmuch as the effective custody and control of the same remains with the ASTC. Above being the position, i.e., the transaction being not one of the transfer of minibuses in favour of the ONGC and that only the services of the buses have been utilised by the ONGC and also having regard to the aforesaid decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals), I am inclined to accept the writ petition by interfering with the impugned decision conveyed by the Finance Department to the ONGC directing it to deduct tax at sources. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. If before passing the interim order in this proceeding any tax was deducted from the ASTC at source, the same shall be refunded to the ASTC.