JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - When the Tribunal bases its decision on the reported judgment of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. S. Bahuleyan (1992) 1 KTR 137 and also fortified by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1990] 77 STC 182, it cannot be said in exercise of powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 that the decision is erroneous or contrary to law as far as the Tribunal is concerned. It also cannot be said that the Tribunal has failed to decide any question of law. 2. The situation is as to whether from a shop selling new video cassettes, if from its record library cassettes are given on hire for displaying to the members thereof, it could be considered as a sale out of a situation of transfer. 3. The State revenue relied upon section 5(1)(iii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 right from the beginning. 4. The Assessing authority has considered the claim for exemption with regard to the hiring charges, as sought under section 5(1)(iii) of the Act. It appears that the shop was inspected on February 23, 1988. The assessment order shows that in all 849 cassettes were intended for hire as per the details given below : English ... 420 Malayalam ... 254 Hindi ... 116 Tamil ... 59 ----- 849 ----- There was no record and therefore the assessing authority resorted to estimation of hire charges and took into consideration reported turnover for comparison of the estimate of hire charges. This is only for the narration of facts. However, a plain look appears that this comparison for estimation on the basis of reported turnover and addition of 10 per cent thereof is what can be understood as a horticultural approach of estimation. 5. Be that as it may, further travel of the proceedings before the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, proceeded on the basis that there is no dispute that the assessee was hiring video cassettes. The authority did not interfere in the matter. 6. 5. Be that as it may, further travel of the proceedings before the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, proceeded on the basis that there is no dispute that the assessee was hiring video cassettes. The authority did not interfere in the matter. 6. Relying on the decisions referred to at the outset, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in a careful and cautious judgment has considered the question of "transfer of right" with regard to this activity under consideration. The Appellate Tribunal considered the fact that the cassettes are given to the customers only for viewing and for that purpose temporary custody is given to the customers and the cassettes are returned after viewing. The two decisions cited hereinbefore and relied upon by the Tribunal in the context of use of the machinery by a contractor and payment of hire charges in regard thereto, leading the court to come to the conclusion that what is given is the custody which may not amount to a transfer, have been accepted by the Tribunal. The question has been considered in great details. It cannot be said in terms of section 41 of the Act that the Tribunal has failed to decide any question of law or the decision is otherwise erroneous. 7. The learned State counsel strenuously submitted that the amendment to section 5(1) has not been taken into consideration. The statutory provision invoked is section 5(1)(iii) of the Act and it is plain that the said provision is on the statute book from its inception except the change of percentage of the rate of tax and the turnover limit in regard thereto. The question of amendment does not come into the picture for consideration in the context of the factual matrix. For the above reasons the T.R.C. stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.