RAMANUJAM, J.

The common question that arises is as to whether the "lot cooly charges" collected by the assessees in these cases from the customers would form part of the turnover. The assessees in these cases are dealers in timber and they had collected "lot cooly charges" in addition to the sale price at a particular percentage of the sale price. They claimed that the aggregate amounts of the said collections should be excluded from their turnover as the said collections are not part of the sale price payable by them for the goods sold. But the said claim was rejected by the assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the "lot cooly charge" will form part of the turnover in view of explanation (2)(ii) to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, defining "turnover" which is as follows :

"The amount for which goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of, or before the delivery thereof." *

The Tribunal, however, following an earlier decision of this court in Srinivasa Timbre Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer upheld the claim of the assessees for deduction of the "lot cooly charges" from the turnover.

In these cases filed by the revenue it is urged that the above decision of this court which directly dealt with this point and decided against the revenue requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala

It is not disputed by the revenue that the decision in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer directly governs the present cases and that if the principle of that decision is applied, the assessees have to succeed. In the circumstances, the question is whether the decision in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer requires reconsideration.In Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer the identical question came up for consideration, and the revenue sought to sustain the addition of "lot cooly charges" in the turnover on two grounds : (1) that the definition of "turnover" itself will include "lot cooly charges" for, so far as the purchaser is concerned, he has no option but to pay the "lot cooly charges" and the total amount which he is compelled to pay as price for the goods purchased by him includes the "lot cooly charges" and "lot cooly charges" is part of the amount charged by the dealer and paid by the customer at the time of the sale, and (2) that even otherwise "lot cooly charges" will fall within the second limb in explanation (2)(ii) to section 2(r) of the Act. As regards the first ground the court held that thought "lot cooly charges" had been paid by the customers along with the price for the goods, they have been shown separately in the bills. As regards the second ground based on explanation (2)(ii) to section 2(r), the court expressed :

"In our opinion, the explanation cannot be read in the abstract. Its context is with reference to the sale and turnover as defined. It is now well-settled that the expression 'sale of goods' in the State legislative entry bears the same meaning and scope as it has been understood in the legislative practice of this country since the enactment of the Sale of Goods Act. The object of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is to levy a general tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the State. It is clear, therefore, that what could legitimately be brought to tax under the Act is the aggregation of the consideration for the transfer of property in the goods. Obviously, it should follow that service charges cannot be equated to consideration for transfer of property in the goods. In the explanation referred to, if understood in the context, as it should be, 'any sums charges for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods' can only relate to something done by the dealer in respect of the goods which involves transfer of property