K. M. NATARAJAN, J.

These three revisions, arising out of a common order, are filed by the assessee, namely, Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, in M.T.A. Nos. 48, 671 and 49 of 1985, respectively. The assessment order is in respect of three assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The value of the disputed turnover is Rs. 7, 07, 878, Rs. 14, 48, 903 and Rs. 15, 55, 878, respectively for the three assessment years.

The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revisions are as follows : The assessee contended that the transport charges paid to the third-party lorry owners for transporting sugarcane from the fields of sugarcane growers to the assessee's factory premises are eligible for exemption of tax under rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, and the same should not be treated as purchase turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, relying on the observations made in the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills 1976 (5) CTR 390, 1976 (38) STC 238. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court reported in Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 1985 (60) STC 113 and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the assessee/revision-petitioner, Mr. S. Jagadeesan, mainly contended that the transport charges paid to the third-party lorry owners for transporting sugarcane from the field to the assessee's factory premises are eligible for exemption, that the said finding of the Tribunal is in conflict with the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1976 (5) CTR 390, 1976 (38) STC 238

(State of Tamil Nadu v. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills) and that hence the finding is to be set aside and the revisions are to be allowed. The learned counsel took us through both the decisions cited above. For proper appreciation of the contentions of the revision-petitioner and the two judgments of this Court cited above, it is worthwhile to set out the relevant facts involved in these revisions. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the purchase price of sugarcane was fixed by a tripartite committee constituted for this purpose and they have fixed the sugarcane price per metric tonne of sugarcane supplied to various sugar factories in this State. In the said order, no provision has been made for deduction in the price of sugarcane sold towards transport charges. But there is a stipulation that the sugarcane growers should supply their sugarcane at the factory site of the mills. It is clear that the price fixed per metric tonne supplied is the price fixed for delivery at the factory site. Admittedly sugarcane is taxable at 12 per cent at the stage of first purchase within the State under entry 62 of the First Schedule. It is also not in dispute that the transport charges paid to the third party lorry owners for transporting sugarcane from the field to the factory site of the petitioners were deducted from the purchase price payable to the growers by the petitioner as per the tripartite agreement. The only contention raised by the assessee is that according to the original agreement, sugarcane is delivered at the factory premises by ryots. The scheme regarding transport charges is as per order of the Managing Director in D2/30558/81 dated November 17, 1981 and another letter dated December 5, 1981, if the sugar factory is at a distance exceeding 40 km, the sugar factory paid the transport freight charges, to induce the farmers at distant places to bring cane to the factory. The said freight charge is borne by the assessee and paid to the cane growers by virtue of the special arrangement. They should not be treate