The judgment of the Court was delivered by

DESAI, C.J. - This statement has been submitted to this Court under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax at the assessee's instance. The connected references are of identical statements of cases in respect of the same assessment year but of different assesses and raise the same questions.

We are called upon to answer the following two questions :-

(1) Whether or not in view of the conditions of the agreement entered into between the Government and the opposite party, the transactions between the Government and opposite party amounted to sale within the meaning of U.P. Sales Tax Act.

(2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, whether in view of the conditions of the aforesaid agreement the sales of foodgrains by the opposite party will be treated to have been made in his own account as dealer.

All the assesses sold foodgrains during the assessment year 1958-59 under agreements entered into by them with the Government. They were assessed to sales tax as dealers on the turnover of the sale of foodgrains by them to their customers during the assessment year. The orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer were confirmed by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax. The assesses applied to the Judge (Revisions) to revise the orders of the Judge (Appeals) contending that they were not dealers and that the transactions entered into by them with their customers did not amount to sale. The Judge (Revisions) allowed the applications holding that the assesses were agents on behalf of the Government and that sales of the foodgrains by them to their customers were sales on behalf of the Government and they could not be made liable to pay sales tax on their turnover. In the statement he writes that he has not held the assesses to be not dealers and that he only held that the transactions between them and the Government by which they received the foodgrains sold to their customers were not sales because the property in them remained in the Government, that they sold them as agents of the Government and that consequently they were not liable to pay sales tax.

"Sale" is defined in section 2(h) of the Sales Tax Act to mean "any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration" and to exclude mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge. As was pointed out by us in Brij Behari Lal Agarwal v. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Civil Misc. Case No. 4 of 1957 decided on 21-8-1963), if a person does an act which has the effect of transferring property in certain goods it amounts to his selling them regardless of whether the property, before the transfer, vested in him or another person. The definition does not require that the act amounting to sale must be done by the owner of the property, i.e., that the transfer must be of own property in the goods. "Dealer" is defined in section 2(c) to mean any person carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in Uttar Pradesh whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise. The nature of the goods is immaterial and so long as the business consists of buying or selling them it is immaterial that the business is subject to certain restrictions and not at the absolute discretion of the person doing the business. It is an act of buying or selling goods even though the buying or selling is done under certain restrictions and not freely. It is also immaterial what the goods are - whether they are foodgrains or controlled foodgrains or not. Sales tax is payable under section 3 on the turnover of a dealer in the assessment year and "turnover" means the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or bought or sold by a dealer either directly or through another, or on his account or on account of others, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Turnover of certain goods is exempt from payment of sales tax under section 4; though a per