S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a railway contractor. For the years 1977-78 to 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 the assessment was completed under section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act) by exempting the turnover relating to supply of stone ballast and spreading out the same along the railway track. According to the assessing authority the transaction was in the nature of works contract and not supply contract. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) initiated suo motu proceedings under section 21 of the Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority was not justified in allowing the exemption in respect of the turnovers relating to supply of stone ballast to the railways. The revisional authority proceeded on the ground that since the petitioner was entrusted with the collecting and stacking of ballast in a particular manner along the railway track, it would be a contract for sale of goods. Hence relying upon the full Bench decision of this Court in H. Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka [1981] 48 STC 496 the assessment was revised by reducing the exempted turnover relating to supply of stone ballast to the railways. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, which agreed with the findings and order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by these orders has approached this Court for relief. ( 2 ) SRI Indrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that both the revisional authority and the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the work undertaken by the petitioner consisted of not merely supplying stone ballast but also spreading out (dumping) the same along the railway track. That, there is no difference between "collection and training out of ballast" and "collection and dumping of ballast" as clarified by the railway authorities under annexure K. As such the Tribunal has erred in holding that dumping of stone ballast does not amount to "training out". Strong reliance is placed upon the ruling of this Court in State of Mysore v. S. R. Bhide [1969] 24 STC 446. Strong reliance is placed upon the ruling of this Court in State of Mysore v. S. R. Bhide [1969] 24 STC 446. ( 3 ) ON the contrary Sri H. L. Dattu, learned Government Advocate, sought to support the view taken by the authorities below, and submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case the transaction between the railways is nothing but a contract of sale, namely, supply of stone ballast to the railways and not a works contract. Sri Dattu further submitted that the ratio of the Full bench decision of this Court in H. Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka [1981] 48 STC 496 is applicable in all force to the facts of this case. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether, on an overall consideration of the terms of contract and the actual work done by the petitioner in pursuance thereof, the transaction should be construed as a works contract, or a supply contract ? ( 5 ) A reference to some of the relevant clauses in the tender documents (including the agreement) would be necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. The tender conditions referred to are for lifting the ballast and dumping the same along railway track. Clause 24 provides that the tenderer should quote rate both in figure and words per 10 cu. m. Clause 27 provides that the tenderer should quote rate, taking into account stacking of the ballast between two T. Ps. (telegraph poles) and lifting thereof from the stacks and dumping on the track between the two T. Ps. Clause 28 states that the ballast should be lifted from the stacks and dumped on the track as directed by the p. W. Inspector-in-charge or his representative. Clause 29 provides that the tenderer should arrange at his own cost, tools, appliances, labour, etc. , for cutting the ballast from the stacks and conveying the same on to the track. The other clauses are not so relevant. Here it may be stated that these conditions are required to be kept in view by the tenderer while offering the tender. The tender schedule gives the description of the work as follows : "1. Collecting and stacking 40 cu. m. size hard and durable stone ballast not inferior to approved sample alongside the railway line as directed by the engineer-in-charge including all load and lift, etc. 2. The tender schedule gives the description of the work as follows : "1. Collecting and stacking 40 cu. m. size hard and durable stone ballast not inferior to approved sample alongside the railway line as directed by the engineer-in-charge including all load and lift, etc. 2. Lifting the above railway's ballast from stacks and dumping the same on track as directed by the engineer-in-charge/p. W. Inspector or his representative. " the acceptance of the tender is by the railway's letter, to which the special conditions and notes are stated. The first condition therein is relevant to determine the type of work that is actually entrusted to the petitioner, which reads thus : "the contractor must quote rates for 10 cu. m. of stone ballast. This will be consolidated rate for the collection, carting, levelling of the ground and stacking, etc. " Condition No. 18 is significant, which reads thus : "wherever there is no space for collection and stacking alongside the railway line, the tenderer/contractor shall be asked to collect and stack at convenient stacks at locations as ordered by the engineer-in-charge anywhere within the railway limits where space is available and the tenderer/contractor shall after the measurements of such stacks taken by the engineer-in-charge arrange for the ballast of such stacks to be lead out and spread alongside the main line anywhere as ordered by the engineer-in-charge without fouling the railway track. For such collection and leading out and for spreading alongside the main line, no extra payment will be made by the railway. " ( 6 ) SRI Indrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to lay emphasis upon the words "training out" in the tender documents and submits that according to the meaning given to the relevant expression in the Full Bench decision in ILR1979 KAR 1673 , [1981 ]48 STC496 (Kar ) (H. Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka ). Having regard to the meaning assigned to the word, "training out" could mean the actual use of ballast in the formation of road or railway track,. e. , metalling the road or ballasting of railway track, by way of spreading the ballast on the road or railway track, as the case may be, according to required specification and consolidate them so as to become part of the road or the railway track. e. , metalling the road or ballasting of railway track, by way of spreading the ballast on the road or railway track, as the case may be, according to required specification and consolidate them so as to become part of the road or the railway track. However, in the instant case, it is unnecessary to go into the question of fact as to what was actually involved in the transaction between the parties in view of the clarification certificate (annexure K) dated July 20, 1987 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager to the assessee, which is extracted below : "south CENTRAL RAILWAY no. H/w. 496/iv/w. 5 Divisional Office works Branch, Hubli date : 20-7-1987. Sri H. Y. Jadhav, contractor opp. : Sri Krishna Kalyan Mantap hubli sub : Issue of clarification certificate ref : Your letter dated 11-7-1987.--------- the following clarification is issued :1. Collection and training out of ballast :in this, the ballast is collected at the station in large stacks of over 35 cu. m. Then this ballast is loaded into railway wagons and unloaded on both the sides of the track depending on the requirements. 2. Collection and dumping of ballast : in this, the ballast is collected in between two telegraph posts in small stacks. This ballast is then lifted and dumped and spread on both sides of track in between the two telegraph posts depending on the requirements. The nature of work in both the cases is identical. " ( 7 ) THE clarification speaks of two stages of the supply of the ballast. One is regarding collection of the ballast at the railway station and loading of the ballast into railway wagon and unloading on both sides of the track, depending upon the requirement. The second stage is lifting of the ballast and dumping and spreading on both sides of the track in between two telegraph poles depending on the requirement. If this is the only requirement under the contract, it involves spreading and consolidating the ballast and stacking the ballast in such a manner so as to enable easy measurement of the quantity of ballast supplied. In that view of the matter the ratio of the decision in the case in [1981] 48 STC 496 (H. Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka) would be clearly applicable to the instant case. In that view of the matter the ratio of the decision in the case in [1981] 48 STC 496 (H. Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka) would be clearly applicable to the instant case. In view of the above, we hold that the transaction between the assessee and the railway is a contract of supply of ballast and not a works contract. As such these petitions have to fail, and are accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) PETITIONS dismissed.