JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner who is a registered dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), carries on business of minor forest produce like shikakai and baibidang. He entered into a contract with the forest department, the terms whereof are to be found in annexure P-1 to this writ petition. Under the contract, the Conservator of Forests, Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, M. P. , sanctioned sale of shikakai and baibidang which constitute minor forest produce. The sale price for the period during which the petitioner was entitled to collect the aforesaid minor forest produce was fixed at Rs. 2,500 for shikakai and Rs. 1,300 for baibidang as is apparent from annexure E-2 to the writ petition. ( 2. ) IN pursuance of the contract, the petitioner collected shikakai and baibidang and ultimately sold them in the market. The Sales Tax Officer was of the view that the turnover representing the sale proceeds of shikakai and baibidang by the petitioner in the market, was liable to be taxed under the Act. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, was that he had already paid the sales tax to the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2, for being paid to the Sales Tax Officer on the sale price of shikakai and baibidang mentioned above and consequently these commodities were in the nature of tax-paid goods in the hands of the petitioner as contemplated by Section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act. This plea, however, did not find favour with the Sales Tax Officer and by order dated 21st December, 1982, copy whereof has been filed as annexure D, he assessed the petitioner to sales tax on the turnover representing the sale proceeds of shikakai and baibidang referred to above. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. ( 3. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. ( 3. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts of the instant case, keeping in view the nature of the contract, shikakai and baibidang constituted tax-paid goods in the hands of, the petitioner and he was not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover representing the sale proceeds of shikakai and baibidang, which came in his hands, consequent upon their sale to various customers by him, annexure E-1 is a copy of the sale conditions. Clause 10 (a) which is one of the conditions, contemplates that in addition to an amount payable under Section 9 above, sales tax payable by the forest department in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as the case may be, shall be recoverable from the successful bidder along with the periodical instalments of the aforementioned amounts on days mentioned in the deed of agreement. ( 4. ) IN para 9 of the writ petition, it has specifically been stated that the Divisional Forest Officer, Central Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, respondent No. 2, had collected sales tax on the amount of sale price for which the contract had been entered into. This submission has not been denied in the return. Consequently, it is established that on the price for which shikakai and baibidang were sold to the petitioner by the forest department, sales tax had already been paid by the petitioner. ( 5. ) IT is not disputed that sales tax of the said commodity is a single point taxation to be paid at the time of first sale. The Sales Tax Officer, however, took the view that the petitioner had paid royalty to collect minor forest produce within a specified area and consequently he could not claim the exemption contemplated by Section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the finding on a decision of this Court in Anandilal Naraindas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore [1968] 22 STC 19. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the finding on a decision of this Court in Anandilal Naraindas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore [1968] 22 STC 19. That was a case where licence was granted to the petitioner to enter on the forest lands, coupled with the grant to collect gum. In para 2 of the report, it has been stated that the petitioner-firm took two forest contracts for extraction and collection of gum from trees growing in the forest area of District Dhar. It was held that as under the contracts, there was no sale of gum as such, the petitioner could not claim exemption from sales tax on the ground that on sales of gum, sales tax being payable on the point of first sale, and the first sale being by the State Government, the liability for payment of sales tax was of the State Government. It was further held that the sales of gum extracted and appropriated by the petitioner to the purchasers were the first sales, and on those sale transactions the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax on the basis of sale price obtained by it for the gum sold by it. ( 6. ) AS is known, gum constitutes liquid substance which oozes out from certain trees consequent upon cuts made on those trees. For taking out the liquid, some minor operation has to be taken recourse to, namely, making cuts on the trees and thereafter the liquid which oozes out, is collected. In this view of the matter it is apparent that in the case of Anandilal [1968] 22 STC 19 (MP) there was no sale of forest produce in the sense that the said produce was available for being collected and taken away. ( 7. ) INDEED the contract, as held in the aforesaid case, was in effect a licence granted to the petitioner to enter on the forest land for extraction and collection of gum from the trees. This is not so in the instant case. Here the goods, namely, shikakai and baibidang constitute by themselves, minor forest produce and are not the result of some operation which is necessary to be performed as in the case of gum. ( 8. This is not so in the instant case. Here the goods, namely, shikakai and baibidang constitute by themselves, minor forest produce and are not the result of some operation which is necessary to be performed as in the case of gum. ( 8. ) SHIKAKAI and baibidang were sold to the petitioner for a fixed price which has already been mentioned above. On the said sale, sales tax had admittedly been paid by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it was apparently a case of tax-paid goods in the hands of the petitioner when they were sold by him to various customers. In our opinion, this case is in pari materia with the case of Ramkrishna Ghanshyam-das v. Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh [1985] 18 VKN 319 (MP ). In that case, the dealer took a lease for collection of chironji from. the Divisional Forest Officer. The contract was for purchase of chironji from the forest department. It was held that the forest department itself, when enters into a contract, pays sales tax on the chironji so sold under the contract and these goods will be in the hands of the assessee, i. e. , the contractor as tax-paid goods. ( 9. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Sales Tax Officer committed a manifest error of law in taking the view that the turnover representing the sale price of shikakai and baibidang received by the petitioner from various customers, was taxable. It was apparently a case where shikakai and baibidang in question were in the hands of the petitioner as tax-paid goods at the time when they were sold by him. Since it was a case of single point taxation and the sales tax was to be paid on the first sale which had already been paid, the petitioner was not liable to any further sales tax. ( 10. ) IN the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 21st December, 1982 (annexure D to the writ petition) is quashed. No order as to costs. The outstanding security amount may be refunded to the petitioner.