JUDGMENT H. K. Sema, J. - The petitioner is a manufacturer and supplier of bricks and is a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter "the Act". The petitioner supplied bricks to the Public Works Department during the period April 1, 1981 to March 31, 1983 in pursuance of contract agreements entered into between them. Civil Rule No. 20 of 1985 relates to period ending March 31, 1982 and Civil Rule No. 21 of 1985 relates to period ending March 31, 1983. On consideration of the terms of the contract these supplies were held by the sales tax authorities to be sales exigible to tax under the Act. The petitioner has challenged the levy by the present writ petitions. Mr. A. M. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the following two common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions. First, that the supply of bricks did not amount to sale - it was works contract. Secondly, if it is held to be sale, the petitioner is entitled to get deduction on account of charges incurred by him for carriage to the place of delivery, handling, etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the facts of these cases, including the contracts with the Public Works Department - terms and conditions thereof and the questions of law referred to above are exactly similar to those in Civil Rule Nos. 104 to 107 of 1983 (M/s. Pioneer Enterprise v. State of Tripura) which have already been heard. The decision in those cases will govern the present cases also. The decision (Since reported in [1991] 80 STC 125 (Gauhati)) in the aforesaid cases has since been delivered. It has been held that supplies of bricks made in pursuance of the contracts in question amounted to sales exigible to sales tax under the Act. It has also been held that the supplier was not entitled to claim any deduction on account of any expenditure incurred in carrying the goods to the place of delivery, loading, unloading, etc., and the total amount received on account of supply of bricks was the sale price for the purpose of taxation. Following the aforesaid decision, we decide both the points involved in these writ petitions against the petitioner. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Dr. B. P. Saraf. - I agree. Petition dismissed.