JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. These appeals filed under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “MVAT Act”) impugn orders passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by which appellants were held liable to pay MVAT. Each appellant received various demands.

For convenience, we are taking the facts in MVAT Appeal No. 8 of 2015.

2. Appellant in MVAT Appeal No. 8 of 2015, Aurobindo Highway Services (hereinafter referred to as “AHS”) is a sole proprietory business of one Jirankalgi. AHS runs a petrol pump and also owns tank trucks (hereinafter referred to as “Tankers”). The tankers were registered with the Regional Transport Authority (RTO) in the name of appellant. AHS also holds Goods Carriage Permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. AHS renders services to oil companies like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HPCL”) by giving on hire these tankers. AHS has filed four appeals being MVXA/8/2015, MVXA/12/2015, MVXA/29/2015 and MVXA/15/2016 pertaining to Financial Year 2006-2007, 2008-2009, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008, respectively. MVXA/15/2016 filed by AHS is not listed but by consent is also taken up for final hearing. Facts are identical in as much as issue is the same and agreement was with HPCL on same terms and conditions. Also, common questions of law has been framed in MVXA/8/2015, MVXA/9/2015, MVXA/11/2015, MVXA/12/2015 and MVXA/13/2015.

3. HPCL had issued a notice inviting tender for transportation of bulk petroleum products (white oil) by road Ex Pakni Depot - Tender No. WZ/IND/MH/POL/BULK/2005-08. AHS had submitted a bid and by a work order dated 5th May 2006, AHS was awarded the contract for transportation of bulk petroleum products by road Ex Pakni Depot from the point at Pakni. The contract was from 1st September 2005 for a period of two years with a provision to extend by one more year as per the terms and conditions of the agreement at the sole discretion of HPCL. The rates applicable were (a) local delivery within 39 kms Return to Depot (hereinafter referred to as “RTD”) Rs.90.77 per KL per KM, (b) outstation delivery beyond 39 kms RTD within State Rs.116.98 paise per KL per KM, (c) delivery to adjoining States Rs.116.98 paise per KL per KM and (d) delivery to other than adjoining States Rs.118.98 paise per KL per KM. Escalation on account of increase in retail price of high speed diesel (hereinafter referred to as “HSD”) was also provided for. AHS was to provide and allot three tankers and also furnish security deposit of Rs.1 lakh per tanker subject to a maximum of Rs.5 lakhs. This was furnished. AHS was told to sign a contract on accepting the work order. AHS accepted the work order and signed an agreement dated 26th June 2006 with HPCL.

4. In all the appeals heard today it was this agreement dated 26th June 2006 and work order dated 5th May 2006, which were under consideration, though appellants in some appeals are different. Respondent has not raised any grievance and, therefore, we accept the statement of Mr. Thakar that all agreements and work orders for hire of tankers are identically worded and were with HPCL. It so appears even from the substantial questions of law framed as later reproduced.

5. AHS was assessed for the year 2006-2007 under the MVAT Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Refund Audit, Solapur (hereinafter referred to “STO”). The STO raised an issue that the receipts (revenue earned) towards oil transportation by use of tankers owned by appellant are towards “Transfer of Right to use goods” and hence, they are receipts from “Sale” under the MVAT Act. AHS replied denying that there was any transfer of right to use goods. AHS stated that there was no delivery of tankers nor possession has been parted with and the effective control was still with AHS. It was clarified that the receipts wer