ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

With the consent of the parties, the revision petitions were admitted on the following question of law:-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that the crane services given by the assessee to the Govt./Private institution will not fall within the ambit of Section 2(36) (iv) of the RVAT Act-2003 and will not fall within the ambit of transfer of right to use goods?"

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that notice(s) in the instant matter were issued vide order dated 30.06.2020. Thereafter, as per order-sheet dated 29.07.2020, service upon the respondent was reflected to be complete. Accordingly, the matter is being taken up for final disposal.

3. Considering the fact that the revision petitions involve common facts as well as questions of law, STR Nos. 36/2020 and 132/2020 titled as Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s Aditya Break Down Service and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s Agarwal Carriers and Lifters respectively , are being taken up as the lead cases/files.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter pertains to the assessment years, 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. A survey was conducted at the premises of the respondent on 22.11.2011. The Assessing Officer found that the respondent-assessee indulged in providing crane services to various customers, inadvertently giving them the right to use and therefore, transferring goods from one person to another i.e. a transfer of right to use goods for any purpose for valuable consideration and assessment. Therefore, the same ought to have been deemed a 'sale' in terms of Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India and the definition of 'sale' under Section 2 (35)(iv) of The Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The relevant provision is reproduced here in under:-

"Section 2(35):"sale" with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes,

(iv) a transfer of the right to use goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration."

5. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforementioned sale had not been disclosed/shown by the respondent-assessee and therefore, in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer imposed tax, interest and penalty upon the respondent-assessee vide Assessment Order dated 16.12.2011. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 06.07.2012, upheld the levy of tax with regard to the Transport Department. Whereas, for the other stakeholders/parties, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for certain verification(s) subject to the directions contained in the order dated 06.07.2012. Subsequently, in compliance of the order(s) of the Appellate Authority qua the remand and the direction(s) contained therein, the Assessment Officer passed an order dated 24.06.2014, in favour of the Revenue. Further aggrieved, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, whereby vide order dated 27.08.2015, the same was decided in favour of the respondent-assessee.

6. Against the order dated 27.08.2015, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board. However, vide impugned order dated 30.09.2019, the aforementioned appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed and the issue was adjudicated in favour of the respondent-assessee. As a result, the Revenue has approached this Court by way of the present Sales Tax Revision, on the following question of law:-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that the crane services given by the assessee to the Govt./Private institution will not fall within the ambit of Se