JUDGMENT H. L. AGRAWAL, C.J. - This batch of three reference cases arising out of a consolidated reference made under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, have been heard together for the sake of convenience to answer the following question of law referred to this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in holding that the stacking charges do not form a part of the sale price and as such is not exigible to sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?" 2. The periods involved in these three cases are the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The facts may be stated in brief : The opposite party, M/s. B. D. Patnaik, is a registered dealer under the Act carrying on business at Keonjhargarh. During the relevant assessment years, the dealer was operating two mines, one at Jaidega and the other at Jharbeda, with head office at Rourkela. The dealer entered into transaction of sale of some mineral ores with M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela. A proceeding under section 12(5) of the Act was initiated against the dealer by the assessing officer, who levied tax of Rs. 24,133.44 for the year 1972-73, Rs. 31,735.35 for 1973-74 and Rs. 26,984.16 for 1974-75. One of the points raised by the dealer was that the amounts realised from the purchasing dealer on account of transport charges and stacking charges did not form a part of the sale price. The dealer failed before the first appellate authority, but before the Tribunal he succeeded on both the points, and the transport charges and stacking charges received by him from the purchaser were directed to be excluded from his taxable turnover. Thereafter, the Revenue applied for making a reference and the reference has been made with respect to only one of the points decided by the Tribunal, namely, as to whether the stacking charges realised by the dealer from the purchaser formed a part of the sale price. 3. It is not disputed that the dealer has collected this charge separately from the purchaser. According to the terms of the contract, weighment of the goods under the transaction of sale was to be made at the weigh-bridge of the Hindustan Steel Limited. 3. It is not disputed that the dealer has collected this charge separately from the purchaser. According to the terms of the contract, weighment of the goods under the transaction of sale was to be made at the weigh-bridge of the Hindustan Steel Limited. The stacking charges were realised by the dealer from the purchaser for stacking the goods at this weigh-bridge for the purpose of weighment. The stacking charges were payable after the weighment was over on the basis of which the bill was raised for the price of the materials. 4. On these materials, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the stacking charges were not charged as a sum for the transfer of the property, but for other services rendered, and, therefore, the stacking charges cannot form a part of the sale price. The Tribunal accordingly directed that the gross turnover should be redetermined by deleting the transport charges and stacking charges for three years in question. 5. Let us now see the relevant provisions of the Act. The definition of "sale price" at the relevant time (before its amendment in the year 1976) read as follows : "'Sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged." The definition of "sale price" may be analysed as follows : "'sale price' is, by section 2(h), defined to be the amount payable to a vendor by the vendee - (a) as consideration for the sale of goods, as well as (b) any sum charged for anything done by the vendor in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof, subject to deduction - (i) from (a) of any sum allowed as such discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, and (ii) from (b) of cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. The deductions provided for in the definition are important and need further and fuller examination." The anatomy of the definition of "sale price", therefore, clearly establishes that the definition is exhaustive because it defines what the sale price is, includes certain charges and also provides for exclusion of certain charges therefrom. The only relevant question to ask is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the seller as consideration for the sale and as to what is the net consideration retainable by the seller. However, for the short point that arises for our consideration, I need not enter into this complicated and complex question which has troubled various High Courts and the Supreme Court from time to time. 6. The heart of the matter for answering the question would depend upon the fact as to whether the amount charged by the dealer as stacking charges was on account of anything done by him in respect of the goods in question either "at the time of or before the delivery thereof" or subsequent to the same. In other words, the matter depends upon the simple fact as to whether the selling dealer had to incur this expenditure on behalf of the purchasing dealer before the actual delivery of the goods was made or subsequent thereto, obviously for the simple reason that after the delivery is effected, the title in the goods passes to the purchaser and the selling dealer himself is not liable to incur any expenditure and, therefore, these expenses will appertain to the sale price. The situation, however, would be different where in order to effect the delivery, some services have to be rendered by the selling dealer. I may state my view with reference to some illustrations. There may be yet a third kind of charges in the bill, such as packing charges. In order to deliver the goods to the common carrier, say, the railways, the seller has to do the packing and transport the goods to the railway station. Although the purchaser has agreed to pay separately the charges for the packing, etc., in addition to the price of the goods, this charge is for a thing to be done by the dealer in respect of the goods before the delivery thereof. This charge, therefore, would be included in the sale price. Although the purchaser has agreed to pay separately the charges for the packing, etc., in addition to the price of the goods, this charge is for a thing to be done by the dealer in respect of the goods before the delivery thereof. This charge, therefore, would be included in the sale price. But it would not be so included if there is a stipulation that it will be separately charged from the bill. The matter would be again different where the agreement is to deliver f.o.r. (free on rail) or a like contract. 7. It was vehemently submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the stacking at the weigh-bridge had to be done by the selling dealer as the purchasing dealer had stipulated that the weighment of the goods should be made at a particular weigh-bridge. It is obvious that until the weighment was made, no bill could be prepared and the weight of the goods could not be ascertained. It will be useful to refer to the facts noticed by the appellate authorities with respect to the stacking charges as that will be the decisive factor in recording a conclusion. According to the contract between the parties, the total price of the mineral ore per ton was Rs. 27.25 besides the stacking charges of Rs. 2. The purchaser, however, wanted bifurcation of this figure for the facility of computation of sales tax on the basic price of the materials alone. The selling dealer, therefore, made the following break-up : (i) Basic purchase price ... Rs. 17.00 (ii) Transport charges ... Rs. 10.25 (iii) Stacking charges ... Rs. 2.00 According to the terms of the agreement, the bills were to be prepared in the same manner showing all the items separately. It may further be mentioned that the order of acceptance of the tender of the dealer indicated that the rates were inclusive of transport charges at the place of delivery, i.e., at the site. The Tribunal has quoted the relevant clause which reads as follows : "The materials should be stacked at the storage site, in the place allotted to the Raw Materials Officer of H.S.L., Rourkela and the material will be stacked up to a height of ten feet. The Tribunal has quoted the relevant clause which reads as follows : "The materials should be stacked at the storage site, in the place allotted to the Raw Materials Officer of H.S.L., Rourkela and the material will be stacked up to a height of ten feet. Determination of weight : Each supply shall be weighed at the Rourkela Steel Plant and payment will be made on the basis of the weight recorded in the H.S.L. weigh-bridge which will be final." Whereas the dealer on account of the stipulations in the contract and separate billing claimed deductions of the said amounts from the sale price, the stand of the Revenue was that the rate represented the total sale price of the materials supplied at the place of delivery, and the subsequent bifurcation of the rate of the goods was only intended to reduce the tax liability which was not permissible according to the scheme of the definition of "sale price". The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has accepted the stand of the department. But the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact that the stacking charge at the rate of Rs. 2 per ton was for the services rendered after the weighment was over on the basis of which the bill had already been prepared for the price of the goods. It is, therefore, obvious that this expenditure was not incurred by the dealer in course of transportation of the property or "at the time of or before its delivery", but subsequent to that. The stacking charges, therefore, in my opinion, cannot form part of the "sale price". The contention advanced to the contrary by the learned Standing Counsel has, therefore, no substance. 8. Before parting with the case I would, however, notice some of the decisions cited at the Bar. At the outset, I must say that there is no decision touching upon "stacking charges". Mr. Pasayat appearing for the opposite party placed strong reliance on the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 84 (Orissa). That was also a case of freight. The cases where charges are realised on account of freight apparently stand on a different footing because, ordinarily, freight is incurred in course of transportation of the goods and is payable separately by the purchaser. That was also a case of freight. The cases where charges are realised on account of freight apparently stand on a different footing because, ordinarily, freight is incurred in course of transportation of the goods and is payable separately by the purchaser. The only requirement under the scheme of the Act is that it should be separately charged. Reliance was next placed by Mr. Pasayat on the decision of this Court in the case of Shree Rani Sati Mining Traders v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle [1983] 53 STC 322. That was also a case of freight. In that case, from the assessee's place of business, the goods, which constituted ores, were carried to the site of the purchaser and delivery was effected there. There being a weigh-bridge within the premises of the purchaser, physical appropriation was following weighment. But when the ores were shifted from the assessee's pit-heat, they are already earmarked for supply to the purchaser against existing contracts and there was a continuous supply by the assessee against existing contracts to the purchaser under this process. This factual difference goes a long way to support the assessee's stand. 9. The learned Standing Counsel referred to two cases, namely, (i) [1982] 51 STC 24 (All.) (Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Vinod Coal Syndicate) and (ii) [1983] 53 STC 365 (Bom.) (Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. v. State of Maharashtra). In Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Vinod Coal Syndicate [1982] 51 STC 24 (All.), the dealer had included in the cash memo issued to the purchasing dealer only the price of coal, his commission and sales tax. The amount of freight inward spent over bringing the coal from the collieries to the purchaser's site was not mentioned in the cash memo. A question arose as to whether the freight inward paid by the purchasers directly to the truck owners was a part of the sale price. Examining the scheme of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the court held that the amount paid to the truck owners as freight inward represented a part of the aggregate amount payable to the dealer and, therefore, would be a part of his turnover liable to tax in his hands. Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. v. State of Maharashtra [1983] 53 STC 365 (Bom.) was also a case of deduction of freight from the sale price. Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. v. State of Maharashtra [1983] 53 STC 365 (Bom.) was also a case of deduction of freight from the sale price. On the facts, it was found that it could not be established that the freight was agreed to be charged separately by the seller. Therefore, there being no agreement to charge freight separately and the price charged being a lump sum price, the assessees could not deduct the amount of freight from the sale price charged by them. 10. The facts of both the cases relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel have no application to the facts of the present case. I have, however, given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the finding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the point of time at which the stacking charges were paid by the dealer. From the stipulations in the contract, it is difficult to hold that the stacking charges were on account of any service rendered by the dealer either at the time of or before the delivery of the goods when he had agreed to pay it separately. The purchasing dealer had clearly directed that after the weighment at a particular place, the goods would be stacked up to a height of 10 feet. In my opinion, after the weighment was thus done at the place desired by the purchasing dealer, all necessary operations for completing the sale and drawing up the bill by the selling dealer were over for all practical purposes. The additional charges were, therefore, incurred for handling the materials for the convenience and on the instruction of the purchaser. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken the correct view of the law that the stacking charges in question did not form part of the sale price and as such were not exigible to sales tax under the Act. 11. The answer to the question must, therefore, be given in favour of the dealer. In the circumstances, however, I shall make no order as to costs. P. C. MISRA, J. - I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.