JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner owns a sugar factory in Mandsaur district. Sugarcane is purchased from cultivators. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). Purchase of sugarcane is taxable under section 7 of the Act on the basis of "purchase price". "Purchase price" is defined in section 2(kk) of the Act. Petitioner's contention is that clauses (ii) and (iv) of section 2(kk) of the Act are ultra vires. On behalf of the respondents, return has been filed. 2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the ground of lack of legislative competence in the State Legislature to incorporate the subject-matter of the impugned clauses in the definition of "purchase price" and treating the same as part of "purchase price". Section 4 of the Act deals with incidence of taxation. Every dealer whose turnover during the year exceeds the limits specified in sub-section (5) of section 4 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on his taxable turnover in respect of sales or supplies of goods effected in Madhya Pradesh. Section 6 deals with levy of sales tax. Section 7 deals with levy of purchase tax. Every dealer who in the course of his business, purchases any goods specified in Schedule II from a registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 is payable by that registered dealer on the sale price of goods or from any other person, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of goods, if after such purchase, the goods are not sold either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, but are sold or disposed of otherwise or used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods or used or consumed otherwise. Sugarcane is included in Schedule II. Petitioner, a registered dealer, purchases sugarcane from cultivators who are not required to pay sales tax on the sale price of sugarcane. The petitioner consumes sugarcane in the manufacture of sugar. Petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of the sugarcane so purchased. 4. Sugarcane is included in Schedule II. Petitioner, a registered dealer, purchases sugarcane from cultivators who are not required to pay sales tax on the sale price of sugarcane. The petitioner consumes sugarcane in the manufacture of sugar. Petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of the sugarcane so purchased. 4. Section 2(o) of the Act defines "sale price" as meaning the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged. 5. "Purchase price" is defined in section 2(kk) as follows : "(kk) 'Purchase price' shall comprise of - (i) the amount payable by a dealer as valuable consideration for the purchase of goods 'simpliciter' : Provided that where goods are purchased together with the packing material or container, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the purchase price of such goods shall be inclusive of the price or cost or value of such packing material or container, whether such price or cost or value is paid separately or not, as if such packing material or container were the parts of the goods purchased; (ii) transport costs, if any; (iii) trade commission, if any, by whatever name called; (iv) forwarding and handling charges, if any; (v) insurance charges, if any; (vi) local taxes, if any; (vii) excise duty, if any, leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (No. 1 of 1944); (viii) cost of packing, if any; and (ix) any other charges or costs other than those specified above, if incurred or paid in respect of goods so purchased. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause 'transport cost' includes such expenses as are incurred by the dealer on transportation of goods after taking delivery from the seller." Essentially "purchase price" consists of the amount payable by a dealer as valuable consideration for the purchase of goods simpliciter in addition to certain other items referred to in clauses (ii) to (ix), namely, transport cost, trade commission, forwarding and handling charges, local tax, excise duty, cost of packing and any other charges or costs incurred or paid in respect of goods so purchased. According to the explanation, "transport cost" includes such expenses as are incurred by the dealer on transportation of goods after taking delivery from the seller. By virtue to clauses (ii) and (iv) of section 2(kk), transport costs and forwarding and handling changes are to be included in "purchase price". The objection of the petitioner is confined to the inclusion of transport cost and forwarding and handling charges as beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 6. Item 54 of List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution reads : "Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92-A of List I". Entry 92-A of List I reads as follows : "Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce." It is beyond controversy that the State Legislature can enact law levying and imposing a tax on sale or purchase of goods which does not take place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The legislative scheme prescribes levy and imposition of sales tax on the basis of sale price as defined and levy and imposition of purchase tax on purchase price as defined. This scheme is very well within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sugarcane factory can operate only if sugarcane is available and the purchase is made from the cultivators either at the factory gate or at purchase centres. If the purchase is made at the factory gate, the cultivators meet the expenses and costs up to the factory gate. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sugarcane factory can operate only if sugarcane is available and the purchase is made from the cultivators either at the factory gate or at purchase centres. If the purchase is made at the factory gate, the cultivators meet the expenses and costs up to the factory gate. If the purchase is made at the purchase centre, the transportation and handling charges are met by the purchaser and in such a contingency, since these expenses are met after the purchase is effected, they cannot be included as part of the purchase price. Learned counsel also referred to the part of the definition of "sale price" in section 2(o) which "excludes cost of freight or delivery when such cost is separately charged" and contended that such exclusion is not available in the definition of "purchase price". According to the learned counsel, this amounts to discrimination. 8. Learned counsel referred to certain decisions which we shall briefly advert to. In Vinod Coal Syndicate v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1989] 73 STC 317, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions in the U.P. Sales Tax Act according to which the amount for which goods are sold, shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of or before the delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or delivery, when such cost or amount is separately charged. Interpreting the legislative intention, it was observed that where the cost of freight was charged separately, that amount could not be included in the turnover. Since in that case, freight was separately charged and paid, it was held not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 28 STC 331, the Supreme Court considered the definition of "sale price" in the Madhya Pradesh Act. The decision rested on the definition of "sale price" which did not specifically include tax as part of sale price. These decisions have no bearing on the question under consideration in this case. 9. In Check Post Officer, Coimbatore v. K. P. Abdulla and Bros. [1971] 27 STC 1; AIR 1971 SC 792 , the Supreme Court considered the question whether section 42(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was constitutional. These decisions have no bearing on the question under consideration in this case. 9. In Check Post Officer, Coimbatore v. K. P. Abdulla and Bros. [1971] 27 STC 1; AIR 1971 SC 792 , the Supreme Court considered the question whether section 42(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was constitutional. The provision stated that the officer in-charge of the check-post or barrier shall have power to seize and confiscate any goods which are under transport by any vehicle or boat and are not covered by a bill of sale or delivery note or other records indicated therein. The court observed : "Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution authorises the State Legislature in respect of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. A legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers; it specifies a field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it .... taxing entry, therefore, confers power upon the Legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or incidental including provision for preventing evasion of tax. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 are intended to set up machinery for preventing evasion of sales tax. But, in our judgment, the power to confiscate goods carried in a vehicle cannot be said to be fairly and reasonably comprehended in the power to legislate in respect of taxes on sale or purchase of goods. By sub-section (3), the officer in-charge of the check-post or barrier has the power to seize and confiscate any goods which are being carried in any vehicle if they are not covered by the documents specified in the three sub-clauses. Sub-section (3) assumes that all goods carried in a vehicle near a check-post are goods which have been sold within the State of Madras and in respect of which liability to pay sales tax has arisen, and authorities the check-post officer, unless the specified documents are produced at the check-post or the barrier, to seize and confiscate the goods and to give an option to the person affected to pay penalty in lieu of confiscation. A provision so enacted on the assumption that goods carried in a vehicle from one State to another must be presumed to be transport after sale within the State is unwarranted. A provision so enacted on the assumption that goods carried in a vehicle from one State to another must be presumed to be transport after sale within the State is unwarranted. In any event, power conferred by sub-section (3) to seize and confiscate and to levy penalty in respect of all goods which are carried in a vehicle whether the goods are sold or not is not incidental or ancillary to the power to levy sales tax. A person carrying his own goods even as personal luggage from one State to another or for consumption, because he is unable to produce the documents specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (3) of section 42, stands in danger of having his goods forfeited. Power under sub-section (3) of section 42 cannot be said to be ancillary or incidental to the power to legislate for levy of sales tax." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision in Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam v. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. [1975] 36 STC 232 (SC); AIR 1975 SC 1991 , in relation to section 22(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It was held that the State Legislature cannot incorporate a provision not related to payment of an amount collected as tax on transactions not liable to tax under the Act or in excess of the tax leviable under the Act as such law plainly will not be a law relating to tax on the sale or purchase of goods, but will be one in respect of an amount wrongly realised by a dealer as sales tax or purchase tax. This decision also is not helpful in deciding the controversy in this case. 11. "Purchase price" as defined in section 2(kk) of the Act includes not merely the consideration of the purchase, but also certain costs or expenses. They are transport costs, trade commission, forwarding and handling charges, insurance charges, local taxes, excise duty, cost of packing, etc. An analysis of these clauses would indicate that these are elements which would be added to the consideration paid for the purchase to arrive at the cost price in the hands of the purchaser. They are transport costs, trade commission, forwarding and handling charges, insurance charges, local taxes, excise duty, cost of packing, etc. An analysis of these clauses would indicate that these are elements which would be added to the consideration paid for the purchase to arrive at the cost price in the hands of the purchaser. The parties may enter into contract distributing burden of costs, either adding it to the consideration or refraining from so doing; the Legislature has attempted to cut the Gordian Knot by stipulating that such costs should be added to the consideration of the purchase in order to arrive at the "purchase price". There is nothing in legislative entry 54 of List II which creates specific restriction on the power of the State Legislature in defining "purchase price". On the other hand, as indicated by the Supreme Court, a legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers, but specifies the field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it. Undoubtedly, the Legislature has the power to enact law levying and imposing purchase tax and for that purpose, specify the components which will go to make up the purchase price for which tax has to be levied. Price undoubtedly is something which the purchaser pays to the seller. It can also include costs incurred in the process of purchase. But this does not necessarily mean that every part of the price goes to the pocket of the seller; for he himself may meet expenses either of transport or of commission or handling, or payment of enumerated tax, in order to effect sale and realise purchase price. The various items of costs or expenses incorporated in the definition relate to matters are intimately connected with the transaction of purchase and the purpose for which the purchase is effected, namely, manufacture or consumption by the purchaser. It cannot be said that transport charges or handling charges are so unconnected with the transaction of purchase or the purpose for which purchase is effected that they could be regarded as falling outside the ambit of "purchase price". It is not as if in the guise of defining purchase price, the Legislature has sought to incorporate in it some factors which are totally unconnected with the transaction of purchase or purpose for which purchase is effected. It is not as if in the guise of defining purchase price, the Legislature has sought to incorporate in it some factors which are totally unconnected with the transaction of purchase or purpose for which purchase is effected. State Legislature is certainly within its competence in defining or enumerating factors which contribute to the assessment or determination of the purchase price. We are not able to agree that in stipulating that transport charges or forwarding or handling charges are to be treated as part of the purchase price, the State Legislature went beyond its legislative competence. We are also not satisfied that any unconstitutional discrimination has been shown in defining "sale price" and "purchase price", i.e., by specifically providing that cost of transportation which is separately charges, will not become part of sale price. The difference in the concept of sale and purchase at times necessitates different criteria being reckoned for the purpose of determining sale price and purchase price. 12. Deductions for the amount of freight may be allowed only when it is related to the sales of dealers, i.e., if it is freight outward. No deduction is allowed in respect of freight inward or in respect of bringing the purchase goods. The State Legislature is competent to provide for inclusion of a particular item as part of purchase price with a view to tax turnover, that is to say, the definition being inclusive, it will form part of the purchase price. The Supreme Court had occasion to decide legislative competence in respect of definition of "sale price" in D. C. Johar & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam [1971] 27 STC 120, wherein it was stated thus : "There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that in authorising the levy of sales tax on transport charges which formed a component of the price for which the goods were sold, the State Legislature had trespassed upon the legislative field reserved to the Centre by List I, entry 89 - the power to levy taxes on railway fares and freights. The tax levied is not a tax on railway freight; it is a tax on turnover, that is, on the aggregate of sale price received by the dealer in respect of sale of goods. The tax levied is not a tax on railway freight; it is a tax on turnover, that is, on the aggregate of sale price received by the dealer in respect of sale of goods. The fact that the price includes the expenditure incurred by the company for railway freight for transporting the goods from the factory site to its place of business does not make the tax imposed upon that component a tax on railway freight." 13. In the same way, the Legislature could define "purchase price" as including transport cost and handling charge. The entry, as already mentioned above, is wide enough to include all facets and items of cost as part of the purchase price. In Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1970] 26 STC 248 (SC), the company had claimed the amount expended by it towards freight and handling charges of the goods from the factories to the warehouse at Ernakulam to be excluded from taxable turnover. Rule 9(f) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, provides as under : "In determining the taxable turnover, the amount specified in the following clauses shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer ... (f) all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of goods sold : (i) freight, (ii) charges for packing and delivery" The Supreme Court held as under : "It is common ground that the sale of the liquor took place in Ernakulam. The company arranges to transport liquor for sale from the factories to its warehouse at Ernakulam. It was not brought for any individual customer. All the expenditure incurred is prior to the sale and was evidently a component of the price for which the goods were sold. It is true that separate bills were made out for the price of the goods ex-factory and for 'freight and handling charges'. It was not brought for any individual customer. All the expenditure incurred is prior to the sale and was evidently a component of the price for which the goods were sold. It is true that separate bills were made out for the price of the goods ex-factory and for 'freight and handling charges'. But, in our judgment, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption under clause (f) of rule 9 applies when the freight and charges for packing and delivery are found to be incidental to the sale and when they are specified and charged for by the dealer separately and expenditure incurred for freight and packing and delivery charges prior to the sale and for transporting the goods from the factories to the warehouse of the company is not admissible under rule 9(f). Rule 9(f) seeks to exclude only those charges which are incurred by the dealer either expressly or by necessary implication for and on behalf of the purchaser after the sale when the dealer undertakes to transport the goods and to deliver the same or where the expenditure is incurred as an incident of sale. It is not intended to exclude from the taxable turnover any component of the price, expenditure incurred by the dealer which he had to incur before sale and to make the goods available to the intending customer at the place of sale." 14. Similarly in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13, the Supreme Court held as under : Under the first part of the definition of 'sale price' in section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Act, the expression meant the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods and, therefore, the concept of real price or actual price retainable by the dealer is irrelevant. The test is, what is the consideration passing from the purchaser to the dealer for the sale of the goods. It is immaterial to enquire as to how the amount of consideration is made up, whether it includes excise duty or sales tax or freight. The only relevant question to be considered is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer as consideration for the sale and not as to what is the net consideration retainable by the dealer. The only relevant question to be considered is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer as consideration for the sale and not as to what is the net consideration retainable by the dealer. The exclusion clause in the second part of the definition of 'sale price' can be availed of by the assessee only if the State seeks to rely on the inclusive clause for the purpose of bringing a particular amount within the definition of 'sale price'. But if the State is able to show that the particular amount falls within the first part of the definition and is, therefore, part of the 'Sale price', the exclusion clause cannot avail the assessee to take the amount out of the definition of 'sale price'. The exclusion clause is not intended to apply to a case where the cost of freight is part of the price, but the dealer chooses to split up the price and claim the amount of freight as a separate item in the invoice. Where the cost of freight is part of the price, it would fall within the first part of the definition and to such a case, the exclusion clause in the second part has no application." Therefore, it depends on the nature of the provisions under the Act. The definitions of "sale price" and "purchase price" may differ in their content depending on the intention of the Legislature to include or exclude a particular item from sale price or purchase price. 15. Hence we are not satisfied that incorporation of clauses (ii) and (iv) of section 2(kk) of the Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but without costs. Security deposits, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.