JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.T.T. No. 248 of 2000, dated 20.05.2005, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and held that the purchaser, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, cannot be placed as "dealer" or "person" or "casual trader" within the meaning of Rule 212 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules") did not have any obligation to apply for Way-bills as stipulated thereunder. Short facts of the case are: the Appellant-Company is a manufacturer and seller of PVC pipes and fittings. The Respondent is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It has its corporate office in the State of West Bengal and the registered office in State of Odisha. In January, 1996 the Respondent No. 4-The Superintending Engineer, Agromech Circle, West Bengal had issued a tender notification inviting tenders for purchase and supply of PVC pipes in Bardwan, West Bengal. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the Appellant(s) had submitted an offer, dated 03.01.1998. The Respondent No. 4 had accepted the said tender offered by the Appellant(s) herein. Subsequently, on a request being made by the Respondent(s), the Appellant(s) had clarified that the goods would be delivered from the factory of Appellant-Company at Baleswar, Odisha directly to the consignee of the Respondent No. 4 in State of West Bengal, by a letter dated 16.10.1998. 2. The Government of West Bengal introduced 'Way-Bill system' Under Rule 212 of the Rules, whereby Way-Bill in Form-42 was to be filed by the person/dealer/casual trader on whose account such goods were transported into the State of West Bengal, with effect from July, 1998. 3. On 02.11.1998, the work order was issued by the Respondent No. 4, whereafter, by a letter dated 03.11.1998, the Appellant(s) had requested the Respondent(s) to arrange for Way-Bill for transportation of materials from the State of Odisha to West Bengal. Respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, Agromech Circle, West Bengal requested the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal to clarify whether the Way-Bills were required to be arranged by the consignee of Respondent No. 4 in State of West Bengal Under Rule 212 of the Rules. Respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, Agromech Circle, West Bengal requested the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal to clarify whether the Way-Bills were required to be arranged by the consignee of Respondent No. 4 in State of West Bengal Under Rule 212 of the Rules. It was clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, that in the context of contract between the parties, the Appellant-Company would require to apply for the way-bill before the appropriate authority, by a letter dated 03.12.1998. 4. Respondent No. 4 had apprised the Appellant(s) of the aforesaid clarification issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal and requested the Appellant(s) to complete the consignment as per the agreed terms in light of the said clarification, by letter dated 10.12.1998. 5. The Appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid clarification issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal approached the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. The Appellant-Company took the stand that under the terms of the contract the goods were to be sold directly from the State of Odisha and thus, this was an instance of inter-state trade whereby the person causing such sale, that is, Respondent No. 4 is liable to apply for the said Way-Bill. The Tribunal had dismissed the application of the Appellant(s) and held that the person who causes entry of the goods into the State of West Bengal is to produce the Way Bill as required Under Rule 212 of the Rules, by order dated 30.11.1999. The Tribunal had concluded that since, the transportation in the instant case was by and on behalf of the Appellant(s) situated in State of Odisha only, the purchasers/consignee, that is, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, were not involved in the said transportation and therefore, could not be held liable to obtain Way-Bill Under Rule 212. 6. It is this finding of the Tribunal which was questioned by the Appellant(s) before the High Court. 4 and 5, were not involved in the said transportation and therefore, could not be held liable to obtain Way-Bill Under Rule 212. 6. It is this finding of the Tribunal which was questioned by the Appellant(s) before the High Court. The Appellant(s) had assailed the order of the Tribunal and contended that the authorities concerned had failed to appreciate that the Way-Bill was required to be filled in and signed by the persons/casual-trader/dealer on whose account the consignment of goods was brought in West Bengal and that the expression "on whose behalf under the Rule 212 of the Rules requires to be interpreted as "in whose favour". The Respondent(s) had supported the interpretation of Rule 212 adopted by the authorities below and submitted that the Respondent(s), under the contract, were not responsible for the delivery of the goods and therefore, could not be held liable to obtain Way-Bill for transportation of goods Under Rule 212 of the Rules. 7. The High Court, after considering the aforesaid submissions and the documents on record, has noticed that the crux of the matter and the primary issue is whether the goods were brought into the State of West Bengal on account of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or not. The High Court, in light of principles of harmonious construction, has observed that Rule 212 of the Rules contemplates that it is the duty of the person/casual-trader/dealer to present before the Revenue authorities on the check-post at the time of entry of goods into the State, a Way-Bill in Form 42, in the manner laid down Under Rules 215, 215A and 215B as the case may be. Such Way-Bill must be duly filled in and bear the signature of the person/causal-trader/dealer on whose account such consignment of goods is imported or brought into the State of West Bengal. The High Court has held that under the contract, even though the goods were brought in the State of West Bengal in connection with transaction entered into by the parties, it was for the Appellant(s) herein to deliver the materials to the consignee/Respondent(s) at the destination spot in the State of West Bengal. Further that until such delivery of goods at the destination spot, the goods remained in custody of the Appellant(s) and could not have been assumed to be brought into State on account of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Further that until such delivery of goods at the destination spot, the goods remained in custody of the Appellant(s) and could not have been assumed to be brought into State on account of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Therefore, the High Court has concluded that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not have been held liable to produce the Way-Bill Under Rule 212 of the Rules. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant(s) are before us in these appeals. 9. At the time of hearing of these appeals, the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s) has also brought to our notice the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authorities of the Odisha, inter alia, holding that the transaction between the Appellant(s) with Respondent No. 4 is inter-State sales, and, therefore, the Appellant(s) are liable to pay the tax only at the rate of 4 per cent and since the Appellant(s) have not filed form No. 'D' as required under the Central Sales Tax provisions, they have assessed the Assessee(s) at the rate of 10 per cent. 10. Learned Counsel would therefore canvass before us that the transaction between the registered office of the Appellant(s) in Odisha and that of Respondent No. 4 is in the nature of inter-State sales and, therefore, the West Bengal Revenue authorities could not have completed any assessments under the provision of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act"). Learned Counsel would further assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and submit that the interpretation adopted by the High Court of Rule 212 of the Rules is erroneous and the liability to obtain Way-Bill ought to have been placed on the purchasers in whose favour the goods were transported and delivered. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents) would support the interpretation of Rule 212 adopted by the High Court and the authorities below and submit that the Respondent(s) could not be held liable to obtain Way-Bill for transportation of goods Under Rule 212 of the Rules since it was the Appellant(s) on whose account the goods were transported into the State of West Bengal. 12. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 13. The aforesaid issue raised by the Appellant(s) before us pertains to the nature of transactions and the applicability of the Act. 12. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 13. The aforesaid issue raised by the Appellant(s) before us pertains to the nature of transactions and the applicability of the Act. At this stage, it is not known whether the West Bengal authorities have initiated any proceedings under the Act against the Appellant(s). Be that as it may. Since the nature of transactions between the parties and applicability of the Act have not been considered by the authorities below, it would not be appropriate to enter into the aforesaid questions at this stage of the proceedings. 14. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and also perused the impugned judgment and order. In our considered opinion, the issue in these appeals is confined only to the interpretation of Rule 212 of the Rules and whether the purchaser-Respondent(s) could be held liable to obtain Way-Bills Under Rule 212 of the Rules. 15. Rule 212 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be observed for transporting consignment of goods into State of West Bengal from any place outside the State of West Bengal. Rule 212(1) contemplates that in respect of transport of consignments of goods across or beyond check post, which are "imported or brought into the State of West Bengal by a person/casual-trader/dealer on his own account from any place outside" the said State, the person/casual-trader/dealer thereunder is required to produce Way-Bill in such form as prescribed for endorsement at the check-post. 16. The language employed by the said Rule is plain and simple. It specifies in clear language that the goods when brought into the State from outside, must be accompanied by the Way-Bill obtained by the person/casual-trader/dealer under whose seal/authority their transportation into the State is effected. It does not specify in any regard the consignee of goods or the purpose for which the movement of said goods was effected. 17. In the instant case, under the contract, it was for the Appellant(s) herein to deliver the goods to the consignee/Respondent(s) at the destination spot in the State of West Bengal and undertake transportation of goods on their own account. 17. In the instant case, under the contract, it was for the Appellant(s) herein to deliver the goods to the consignee/Respondent(s) at the destination spot in the State of West Bengal and undertake transportation of goods on their own account. It is until the delivery of goods at the destination spot in West Bengal, the goods would remain in custody of the Appellant(s) and thus, could not be assumed to be brought into the State of West Bengal on account of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Thus, the Respondent(s) could not be held liable to obtain the Way-Bill Under Rule 212 of the Rules. It would be the responsibility of the Appellant(s), on whose account the goods are transported into the State of West Bengal, to obtain the appropriate Way-Bill under the Rule 212 of the Rules. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the question raised in the instant appeals has been rightly considered and answered by the High Court and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity requiring our interference and decision. 19. If for any reason, the West Bengal authorities proceed against the Appellant(s) by holding the transaction between the Appellant(s) and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is intra-State State sales, it is for the Appellant(s) to demonstrate before them that the transaction between the Appellant(s) and Respondent No. 4 and 5 is inter-State sales, and, therefore, the West Bengal authorities have no jurisdiction to levy tax under the Act. 20. If for any reason, the Appellant(s) fail, they are at liberty to question the same before the appropriate forum as provided under the Act. Accordingly, the civil appeals are disposed of.