ORDER : Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, at length. 3. On the facts of this case, we find that the High Court has not committed any legal error in directing the appellant/State to issue Form-F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to the respondents herein. However, we also note that in the impugned judgment the High Court has made general remarks to the extent that the Revenue/appellant would not have any authority to refuse issuance of Form-F for making the declaration under any circumstances. That may not be a correct statement inasmuch as it would always be open to the appellant/State or the authority issuing such F-Form to see as to whether the conditions for issuance of such form are fulfilled or not. Further, the observations of the High Court made in paras 9 and 10 regarding stock transfer inter-State and inter-State sale are to be expunged. Ordered accordingly. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4392/2014 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. On going through the various clauses of the contract we find that the contract entered into between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 (ONGC) was essentially a service contract. No doubt, for performing those services respondent no. 1 had brought certain machinery at the site for which it was paid rental as well by respondent no. 2 (ONGC). However, this machinery remains in the possession of respondent no. 1 and it is only respondent no. 1 who was using the same. In these peculiar facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. However, we make it clear that insofar as Sections 2(b), 2(d) and 3 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 as well as Rule 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 are concerned, they are held to be valid in law. 7. We may also record at this stage that Mr. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State/appellant, had attempted to argue that it was a case of works contract. However, we find from the notice that was issued by the appellant to respondent no. 1 that there are no foundational facts and the sales tax was not demanded on this count at all. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State/appellant, had attempted to argue that it was a case of works contract. However, we find from the notice that was issued by the appellant to respondent no. 1 that there are no foundational facts and the sales tax was not demanded on this count at all. Therefore, we are not going into this issue. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.