@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.@mdashThese Tax Case Revisions have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. The Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the fact that there existed only element of services under the franchise agreement and there is no sale of goods in any form involved.
2. The Appellate Tribunal went wrong in not appreciating the fact that the agreement itself lays out in detail the services by the petitioner in clause II and obligation in clause III which clearly indicates that there is no sale of trade mark/goodwill as wrongly assumed by authorities.
3. The Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the fact that under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, any transaction representing service/labour and other like charges falls out side ambit and scope of taxation.
The petitioner in both the Tax cases, is the same assessee, a company engaged in the business of operating supermarket under the name and style of VITAN A/C Supermarket. T.C.(R) No. 29 of 2011 pertains to the assessment year 2002-03 and T.C.(R). No. 30 of 2011 pertains to the assessment year 2004-05 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act).
Facts:-
2. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 84,68,410/- and Rs. 12,07,663/- respectively. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), who remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. On such remand, the Assessing Officer determined the taxable, resale and total turnover at Rs. 5,69,063/-, Rs. 11,62,213/- and Rs. 17,31,276/- respectively and levied tax at 4% on the turnover relating to the Franchise Commission to the tune of Rs. 5,23,613/-. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who partly dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter only to the extent regarding the Franchise Commission which was received by the petitioner in Bangalore which was also brought under the assessment under TNGST Act. Aggrieved by such order partly dismissing the appeal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai (Tribunal). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 18.10.2010, against which the petitioner has filed T.C.(R) No. 29 of 2011.
3. For the assessment year 2004-05 under TNGST Act, the petitioner was assessed on a total, taxable and resale turnover of Rs. 65,25,872/-, Rs. 6,32,477/- and Rs. 31,00,745/- respectively and levied tax at 4% on the turnover relating to Franchise Commission to the tune of Rs. 5,81,477/- and at 12% on the sales turnover of Rs. 51,000/- relating to a motor vehicle apart from imposing penalty u/s 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act. On an appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority, the appeal was partly dismissed and aggrieved by that portion of the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the common order dated 18.10.2010, against which T.C.(R) No. 30 of 2011 has been filed before this Court.
4. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 27.09.2002, with M/s. Rajalakshmi Departmental Stores described as ''Franchisee'' stating that they are engaged in business of Operating and Franchising a distinctive style of supermarket under the name of VITAN A/c Supermarket and that they have developed a business plan and method in connection with the operation of supermarket providing general merchandise and service utilizing certain standards, specifications, methods, procedures, management systems etc., which they claimed to have been improved and developed from time to time and the distinguishing characteristic of VITAN together with trade name, services, trademark, trade symbol and copy right as adopted and designed for use in their system. It has been further stated in the agreement that the Franchisee recognises the benefits to be derived from being identified with and licenced by VITAN and being able to utilise the VITAN system made available to the Franchisee and desired to take on lease the location at No. 21, Spurtank Road, Chennai 31, being a fully furnished store with all fittings and fixtures and the maintenance cost to be borne by the franchisee during the tenure of the agreement. The duration of the agreement was for ten years expiring on 27.09.2012, unless extended further. In terms of clause 1(a), the Franchisee was given exclusive right to operate the supermarket in the said location. Clause 4 of the agreement deals with payment and the Franchisee was required to pay a refundable deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- and "fee" of one percent on the total sale for the month from zero to 14 lakhs and thereafter, at 1.5% on the total sale for the month, the payment to commence from the calendar month when the Franchisee will reach a sale of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Apart from the above payment, the Franchisee was required to bear all running expenses like monthly expense, energy and water charges, staff salary, security, maintenance of equipment and other direct expenses for the running of the stores. In sub-clause (d) of the Clause IV of the agreement, the Franchisee was to remit monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- directly to the owner of the premises. In terms of Clause XI, the Franchisee was required to do all accounting and billing as per the formats of the petitioner. Clause XIV, deals with termination of the agreement.
5. The petitioner contended that the agreement being a Franchise agreement cannot be considered as sale of goods in any form and the petitioner has been filing service tax returns in respect of franchise commission received and therefore, the receipts cannot be brought under taxable net under the TNGST Act under item No. 46 of Part B of First Schedule at 4%. It was stated that the entry does not include service and it will not fall under ''goods'' within the meaning of TNGST Act. It was further stated that the Assessing Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the conditions in the agreement which clearly indicate that there was no sale of trade mark or goodwill.
6. The Assessing Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority held that on a reading of the various clauses in the agreement, it clearly indicates that the dealers transferred their trade name and goodwill which are intangible goods falling under item No. 46 of Part B of I Schedule to TNGST and taxable at 4%. The Tribunal while examining the correctness of such finding, pointed out that this Court in the case of S.P.S. Jayam and Co., Vs. Registrar Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and others reported in
Contentions of the Assessee:-
7. Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no transfer of goods involved in the Franchise transaction and it is not liable to tax under Entry 46 of Part B of I Schedule of TNGST Act. The nature of transaction is purely a service transaction and the agreement should be seen in its entirety and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that their exists only element of service under the agreement and there is no sale of goods in any form. It is further submitted that the fee received by the petitioner, which is a franchisee fee are not goods within the meaning of TNGST Act and the Tribunal committed serious error in holding that there was transfer of trade mark and goodwill without understanding the scope of various clauses/conditions in the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that actionable claims are not includable in the definition of goods for the purpose of Sales Tax Act and therefore, the question of levying sales tax does not arise. In support of such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
Contentions of the Revenue:-
8. Mr. Aditya Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue, by referring to the various clauses in the agreement more particularly Clause XIV which deals with ''termination'', submitted that this clause gives a clear indication as regards the rights transferred by the petitioner and the rights so transferred are right to use intangible property including the trade mark. It is further submitted that the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation (supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts on hand and the contentions raised by the petitioner have been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in
Discussion:-
9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and considered their submissions and materials placed on record.
10. The question which falls for consideration in these Tax Case Revisions are as to whether the receipts at the hands of the petitioner/assessee pursuant to an Agreement dated 27.09.2002 which they term it as a franchisee agreement are liable to sales-tax under entry 46 Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and taxable at 4%. The petitioner would contend that the fee or franchise commission received is a payment for services and hence no sales-tax is leviable; that the fee received are not goods within the meaning of TNGST Act, 1959.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee contended that the fee received is an actionable claim and stands excluded from the definition of "goods" as defined u/s 2(j) of the Act and no sales-tax is leviable. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrise Associates (supra) which decision was further examined by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Yasha Overseas (supra).
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006 TIOL 15 SC CTLB) submitted that the agreement entered into by the petitioner is a franchise agreement and the right given to the franchisee is not transfer of right to use goods and it does not satisfy any one of the attributes as culled out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to constitute a transfer of right to use goods.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Malabar Gold Private Limited (supra) contended that under the agreement the transferee does not obtain any legal right, it is not to the exclusion of the transferor and it was merely a license to use the goods and as in the case before the Kerala High Court the petitioner/assessee retains right to transfer the trade mark and similar agreement has been entered into in Bangalore and thus, the petitioner retained effective control of the rights and therefore, would not fall within the definition of goods and does not satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL (supra).
14. Resisting the contention of the petitioner/assessee, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue would contend that the decision in the case of Sunrise Associates (supra) has no application to the facts of this case and the issue raised in these cases was squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P.S. Jayam & Co., (supra) where the Division Bench held that the transfer of a right to use a trade mark was goods and liable to levy of sales tax. It is further contended that right given by the petitioner is a right to use an intangible property and would fall within the definition of goods and such transfer would fall within the ambit of sale as defined u/s 2(n) of the Act.
15. It is further contended that the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Malabar Gold Private Limited (supra) has absolutely no application to the facts on hand as in the said case, it was factually found that the franchisor retained the right, effective control and possession and it was not a case of transfer of possession to the exclusion of the transferor.
16. In the light of the above submissions, it is first necessary to consider the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates (supra). The question before the Constitution Bench in the said case was regarding the correctness of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in H. Anraj (supra) as well as in
17. The question in H. Anraj (supra) was whether sales-tax can be levied by States on the sale of lottery tickets. In the said decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that sale of a lottery ticket involved two rights namely (i) the right to participate in the lottery draw and (ii) the right to win the prize, depending on chance. The second right was held to be a chose in action and therefore, not ''goods'' for the purposes of levy of sales tax while the first right was a transfer of a beneficial interest in moveable goods and was a sale within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution and consequently, subject to sales tax.
18. The reference to the Constitution Bench arose since a decision was rendered by the High Court of Delhi in
19. The decision of the High Court of Delhi was challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and an order of reference was made on a prima facie view that there was no good reason to split a sale of a lottery ticket into two separate rights and therefore, the decision in the case of H. Anraj (supra) required reconsideration. Though there was no specific reference as regards the correctness of the decision in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation since the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case had agreed with the decision of H. Anraj (supra), the same was also before Constitution Bench. It was observed that in terms of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
20. The Hon''ble Supreme Court pointed out that these definitions excluded inter alia an actionable claim from the definition of ''goods'' and an ''actionable claim'' has been defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to mean a claim to any debit, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognize as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent.
21. After analyzing the decisions in H. Anraj (supra) and Vikas Sales Corporation (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the word ''goods'' for the purposes of imposition of sales tax has been uniformly held to mean all kinds of movable property and the word ''property'' may denote the nature of the interest in goods and when used in this sense means title or ownership in a thing.
22. Referring to dictionary of Commercial Law by A.H. Hudson, wherein it has been pointed out that the property means subject matter of ownership and the same word in the context of a ''sale'', means, the transfer of ownership in goods. It was held that an ''actionable claim'' is movable property and ''goods'' in the wider sense of the term but a sale of an actionable claim would not be subject to the sales tax laws. It was further held that every claim is not an actionable claim, it must be a claim either to a debt or to a beneficial interest in movable property the beneficial interest is not the movable property itself, and may be existent, accruing conditional, or contingent and the movable property in which such beneficial interest is claimed, must not be in the possession of the claimant and, an actionable claim is therefore, an incorporeal right and that goods for the purpose of sales tax may be intangible and incorporeal as has been held in
23. In the case of M/s. Yasha Overseas (supra) the question which fell for consideration was whether the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vikas Sales Corporation holding that the transfer/sale of a REP licence was exigible to sales-tax, stands impliedly overruled by the Constitution Bench decision in Sunrise Associates (supra). After analyzing the decision in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the REP licence and DEPB have an intrinsic value that makes it a marketable commodity and qualifies within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and its sale is exigible to tax.
24. In the preceding paragraphs of this Order, we have referred to the nature of transaction between the petitioner and the third party. The agreement dated 27.09.2002, has to be considered to ascertain as to whether the nature of transaction is an actionable claim. For better appreciation, the relevant conditions of the agreement are quoted hereinbelow:-"I. Grant of Franchisee Rights:
a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement VITAN hereby grants to the Franchisee the exclusive Franchisee to operate VITAN A/C. Supermarket at the location, mentioned above.
b) Subject to the terms and conditions to this Agreement VITAN hereby grants to the Franchisee the rights to use VITAN systems in the premises noted below and binds themselves not to offer Franchisee to others within a reasonable distance from the following location. The decision of vitan in this matter will be final not to be contested.
No. 21, Spur Tank Road, (Ground Floor),
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
It is understood and agreed that Franchisee shall have the exclusive rights to operate VITAN A/C., supermarket and to use the VITAN systems at the located mentioned above.
II. Duration of Lease:
a) This agreement will be in force for a period of 10 (Ten) years and expires on 27.09.2012 unless extended further.
b) The lease for Chetpet Vitan stores is upto year-2004 and extended by another 5 years, however the Franchisee lease is subject to continuity of lease by landlord, and will expire 15 days before the handing over date.
III. Services by VITAN:
1. Marketing exercise as required by the franchisee.
2. Joint promotions & schemes along with other willing franchisees.
3. Quality, price sourcing guidance.
4. Manpower selection.
5. Management help.
IV. Payments:-
a) Franchisee will pay a refundable deposit to the Franchiser totaling Rs. 7 lacs (Rupees Seven lakhs). This 7 lacs (Rupees Seven Lakhs) have been paid. This deposit will not bear any interest.
b) Franchisee agrees to pay to VITAN Franchisee fee as under: Franchisee fees payable to Vitan (Franchisor) will commence from the calendar month when Franchisee will reach a sale of Rs. 900000/-, Franchisee fee will be
1. 1% on total sale for the month from 0 to 14 lacs.
2. On reaching a monthly sale of 14 lacs the Franchisee fees will be increased to 1.5% on the total sale for the month.
b) Franchisee fees will be paid within 10 days after competition of the calendar month.
Apart from the above franchisee shall bear all running expenses of the store like
Monthly rent for the premises
Energy Charges & Water Charges
Staff Salary & Security
Maintenance of equipment and other direct expenses for running the stores.
c) Supplies:- For all supplies from VITAN, the terms of payments will be "cash & carry".
For other suppliers, the Franchisee will pay on a timely basis as per terms agreed with the supplier.
Franchisee is aware that failure to make prompt payment to its suppliers may cause irreparable harm to the reputation of VITAN and other Franchisees, & profitability of Franchisee.
d) Apart from the above, the Franchisee shall bear all running expenses of the stores like monthly rent of Rs. 25000/- for the premises, Energy Charges, Staff Salary and Security, Maintenance of equipment and other directs expenses for the running the stores. The monthly rent of Rs. 25000/- shall be paid by the Franchisee to the owner of the premises direct. The monthly rent is subject to increase time to time and shall be paid as fixed by the landlord.
The Franchisee shall not be liable to pay any dues payable by Vitan Departmental Stores & Industries Ltd., for the purchase made by them for their various branches and for the services rendered to them by any organisation prior to 25.09.2002. All such liabilities are the responsibility of VITAN and such liabilities shall be settled by VITAN.
d) Similarly, if any liabilities were contracted by M/s. Vitan Departmental Stores & Industries Ltd., with any Bank, Financial and other Institutions prior to 25.07.2002. Such liabilities shall also be settled by VITAN only.
XI. Accounting & Billing
All accounting and billing in respect of this operation will be as per the formats of VITAN.
The Franchisee will execute and submit a monthly report on VITAN''s prescribed Form of its gross sales from the reported months operations and any additional information which VITAN request. This report must be sent to VITAN together with payment of the monthly Franchisee Fee on or before 7th day of the succeeding month. If requested by VITAN Franchisee will furnish more frequent report of gross sales by telephone or otherwise as specified by VITAN.
XIV. Termination
The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute a default under this Agreement.
If Franchisee shall misuse the VITAN system or Licensed Right of any other Names, marks, systems, insignia, symbols or rights provided by VITAN to Franchisee or otherwise materially impure the goodwill associated herewith are VITAN''s right therein or if Franchises shall use at the Super Market any names, marks, systems, insignia or symbols not authorised by VITAN.
If Franchisee shall fail to remit any payment when due to VITAN.
If Franchisee shall fail to submit to VITAN the financial or other information required under this Agreement.
If Franchisee fails to obtain VITAN''s prior written approval of consent as expressly required by this Agreement.
If Franchisee defaults in the performance of any other points under this Agreement.
If Franchisee fails to operate the Supermarket in accordance with VITAN''s procedures or fail to use materials which confirm tot he specification and standard of VITAN.
If Franchisee become insolvent by reason of inability to repay its debts or shall be adjudged a bankrupt or convicted under any law.
Upon occurrence of any of the event set forth in any other rights or remedies contained in this Agreement or provided by law or equity, terminate this Agreement or provided by law or equity, terminate this Agreement. Such termination shall be effective 30 days (Thirty) after written notice is given by VITAN to Franchisee of any of the events set forth in this Agreement. If such defaults are not cured in such 30 days period.
Termination cannot be on any other ground other than mentioned above.
Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason or upon expiration of the term thereof, Franchisee agrees as follows:
1. To any immediately to VITAN the full amount of all sums due under this Agreement.
2. To hand over the furnished store in good working condition with or without merchandise as to be decided by the franchiser.
3. To cease immediately to hold itself out in any way as a Franchisee of VITAN or to do anything which would indicate relationship between it and VITAN except to the extent permitted in this Agreement.
However, the Franchisee can terminate this agreement during the duration of 10 years by giving 3 months notice and paying a compensation equivalent to one month Franchisee fees for every balance year of lease period. The last month Franchisee fees will be basis of this calculation.
25. On a perusal of the above conditions, it is evidently clear that the petitioner has transferred the right to use VITAN system, the licensed right of their names, marks, systems, insignia, symbols and goodwill. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services (supra) held that goods for the purpose of sales tax may be intangible and incorporeal. But to qualify as an actionable claim in terms of the definition contained in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it should be only a claim, and every claim is not an actionable claim but it must be a claim to a debt or to a beneficial interest in movable property and such beneficial interest is not the movable property itself and may be existent, accruing, conditional, or contingent. The transaction done by the petitioner is not a claim nor it is a debt or a beneficial interest in the movable property but the right transferred by the petitioner is a transfer of a right in the trade mark, a trading style which are incorporeal rights and are intangible things and transfer of such incorporeal right is undoubtedly exigible to tax. Therefore, the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrise Associates (supra) does not lend any support to the case of the petitioner.
26. Similarly, the decision in the case of M/s. Yasha Overseas also which considered the judgment in Vikas Sales Corporation observed that the decision has not been over ruled by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates and pointed out that DEPB has an intrinsic value that makes it a market commodity and therefore, DEPB like REP licence qualifies as ''goods'' within the meaning of the sales tax laws and its sale is exigible to tax. We find that this decision is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the franchise fee received by the petitioner is for the use of the trade mark along with store and the stocks and as held by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, since the petitioner retains the right, effective control and possession, it is not a case of transfer of possession to the exclusion of the petitioner and therefore, would not attract levy of sales tax. The agreement which was subject matter of consideration before the Kerala High Court was a franchise agreement under which every franchisor can store and sell products and the show room should have a name board Malabar Gold as per the design approved by the Company. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, considering the peculiarities of the franchise agreement held that the concept of right to use the goods under Article 366(29-A) and the tests required to satisfy the same as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in BSNL are not satisfied. On examining the conditions contained in the franchise agreement, the Division Bench held that the agreement will show that the company retained effective control and merely because there is an agreement by way of franchise agreement enabling the franchisees to use the trade mark on the products of the Company, it cannot be said that the franchisees have got effective control of the trade mark. It was further pointed out that even while the franchise agreement with one is in force, the Company can use the trade mark on their own and can enter into franchise agreement with other parties and during the said period, the effective control is with the company. In the light of the nature of the transaction, the Kerala High Court observed that the attributes laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL were not satisfied.
28. We have perused the conditions of the agreement, dated 27.09.2002 entered into by the petitioner from which we find that the petitioner has transferred their right to use their trade mark, good will, reputation exclusively to the franchisee in respect of a particular outlet and any misuse of such exclusively licensed right rendered, the franchisee open to action which meant to include the termination of agreement in terms of XIV of the said agreement. Therefore, it is a case where goods which are in the nature of intangible or incorporeal goods were available for delivery there were consensus ad idem to the identity of such goods as the transferee has a legal right to use the goods and during the period when the agreement was in force, namely for a period of 10 years it was an exclusive right given to the transferee by the petitioner in respect of a particular store and consequently a transfer of right to use and not merely a licence to use the goods and during the period when the agreement was in force, the petitioner as the transferor could not transfer such goods with particular reference to the exclusive right given in respect of a particular store to any other party. Thus, all the attributes to constitute transfer of right to use the goods have been fulfilled and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the tests laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in BSNL''s stands fully satisfied and the right given by the petitioner is undoubtedly a transfer of right to use incorporeal or intangible goods and therefore, exigible to sales-tax.
29. In S.P.S. Jayam and Co., (supra), a Division Bench of this Court considered an identical question as in the case on hand. In the said decision, the assessee allowed an agency to use their trade mark and the receipts were shown in the books of accounts as royalty. In the original assessment, the turn over relating to the transaction was exempted accepting the claim that it was only royalty. Subsequently, the assessing authority took the view that the consideration was received for transfer of right to use the trade mark and hence, the same is taxable. Notice was issued to the assessee who failed to respond and the Assessing Authority proceeded on the basis that there was transfer in incorporeal goods which is taxable under the Sales Tax Act and passed orders revising the assessment. The assessee preferred appeal and the First Appellate Authority who accepted the case of the assessee and held that the reassessment was not proper. The Joint Commissioner, exercising suo motu revisional power held that transfer of trade mark is a sale of incorporeal goods for consideration and therefore, taxable under the TNGST Act. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the State Taxation Tribunal which dismissed his appeal and the assessee filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. It was contended before this Court that the agency was given a mere right to enjoy the trade mark for a period and the amount received was only towards royalty and hence, should have been exempted while calculating the turnover. The Revenue submitted that the transaction is a sale of incorporeal goods. The Division Bench after referring to various clauses in the agreement between the parties therein took note of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Conclusion:-
30. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner allowed the third party/transferee to use the trade mark by transferring the right to such use in the same manner and it is undoubtedly an economic exploitation of intangible or incorporeal goods and sales tax can be levied on the received amount. In the light of the above, no case has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tax Revision Cases fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
