Judgment :- G. Sivaraj an, J. These are two tax revision cases filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam. The assessee in both these cases is the same and is the respondent in both the revisions. 2. The assessment years concerned are 1984-85 and 1987-88. The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales tax Act and is engaged in the manufacture of V Straps. The assessment of the respondent for the year 1984-85 was originally completed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ettumannoor, as per his proceedings dated July 20,1986. Later the assessment was reopened by the assessment authority under S.19 of the Act for including an amount of Rs. 11,280 representing the rent received by the respondent for the use of his hydraulic press by various customers. According to the assessing authority, the rent received on account of the hydraulic press formed part of the turnover of the respondent, in view of explanation (3B) to Cl. (xxi) of S.2 of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 1984 with effect from April 1,1984. The assessing authority accordingly included the said sum of Rs. 11,280 as taxable turnover of the respondent and completed the assessment under S.19 of the Act. Similarly, for the assessment year 1987-88, the assessment originally completed as per proceedings dated July 20,1986 was reopened under S.19 of the Act and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the assessing authority included a sum of Rs. 22,560 representing the rent received by the respondent for using his hydraulic press by various customers as taxable turnover and completed the assessment under S.19 of the Act. The appeals filed by the assessee against the said assessment orders were dismissed by the first appellate authority. On second appeal, the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeals, whereby the addition of Rs. 11,280 in the assessment for the year 1984-85 and Rs. 22,560 in the assessment for the year 1987-88 were deleted. Aggrieved by the common order of the Kerala General Sales tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. in T. A. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1990, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), has filed these two revisions before this Court. 3. 22,560 in the assessment for the year 1987-88 were deleted. Aggrieved by the common order of the Kerala General Sales tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. in T. A. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1990, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), has filed these two revisions before this Court. 3. The question raised by the petitioner in these two revisions is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in finding that the turnover of the assessee in view of explanation (3B) to Cl. (xxi) of S.2 of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 does not form part of the taxable turnover. In other words, the question raised is regarding the justifiability of the deletion of the two amounts be presenting the rent received by the respondent for the use of his hydraulic press by various customers. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the assessing authority was perfectly justified in including the said amounts in the assessments for the years 1984-85 and 1987-88 by resort to S.19 of the Act. According to him, the provisions of explanation (3B) to Cl. (xxi) of S.2 clearly provides for inclusion of the said amount in the taxable turnover of the assessee. In order to test the correctness of the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. S.2(viii) of the Act defines "dealer". (xxi) of S.2 clearly provides for inclusion of the said amount in the taxable turnover of the assessee. In order to test the correctness of the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. S.2(viii) of the Act defines "dealer". The relevant portion reads as follows: "(viii) 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, executing works contract, transferring the right to use any goods or supplying by way of or as part of any service, any goods directly or otherwise whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration." S.2(xxi) defines "goods" as follows: "(xxi) 'Goods' means all kinds of movable property (other than newspapers, actionable claims, electricity, stocks and shares and securities) and includes live-stock, all materials commodities and articles (including those to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of immovable property or used in the fitting out, improvement or repair of movable property and every kind of property (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, and all growing crops, grass or things attached to, or forming part of the land which are agreed to be served before sale or under the contract of sale". S.2(xxi) defines 'sale', the relevant portion reads as follows: "(xxi)v sale with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer whether in pursuance of a contract or not of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge." Explanation (3B) reads as follows: "A transfer of right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration shall be deferred to be a sale." S.2(xxv) defines "taxable turnover" as follows: "(xxv) "taxable turnover' means the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover of purchase or sales in the course of inter-state trade or commerce or in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India in the course of import of the goods into territory of India". S..(xxvii) defines "turnover" as follows: "(xxvii)x turnover means the aggregate amount for which goods are either brought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his own account or on account of others, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover". Section 5 which is the charging Section, the relevant portion reads as follows: "S.5(1). Every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year is not less than one lakh rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whatever be his total turnover for the year, shall pay tax on his taxable turnover for that year, - (iii) in the case of transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) at the rate of six per cent at all points of such transfer on an aggregate turnover of rupees one lakh and above". 4. 4. From a reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that in order to bring a transaction exigible to tax under the provisions of S.5(1) of the Act, to it is necessary to establish that there is a sale or purchase of goods for which it has to be established that there is a transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Even under the extended definition of 'sale' contained in explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi) of the Act is has to be established that there is a transfer of right to use any goods. If the transaction is not in respect of any goods, it will not attract the provisions of the Act. Similarly even if the transaction is in respect of the goods, unless there is a transfer of. the property in goods by one person to another or unless there is a transfer of right to use any goods the provisions of the Act are not attracted even if the other conditions of the definition of 'sale' are satisfied. These matters are explicit from the provisions extracted hereinabove. (emphasis supplied) 5. In the instant case the two amounts included in the assessment for the years 1984-85 and 1987-88 admittedly represent the rent received by the respondent for using his hydraulic press by various customers. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal narrated the facts of the present case in paragraph 2 of the appellate order as follows: "2. The appellant is having a hydraulic press as a part and parcel of the plant and machinery embedded to his factory. He is manufacturing his own goods. Bu t when the factory is not having full work, the plant and machinery including the hydraulic press are kept idle, when there are customers to approach the appellant to let out the service of the hydraulic press for facilitating them to process the raw materials rubber, the appellant allows the customers to use the facility of the hydraulic press within his factory. For this facility the customers make a payment to the appellant, in the form of a service charge". After adverting to the provisions of Explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi), the Tribunal observed as follows: "4. For this facility the customers make a payment to the appellant, in the form of a service charge". After adverting to the provisions of Explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi), the Tribunal observed as follows: "4. The true nature of transaction in the present case is the hiring of the hydraulic press to various customers on machine-hour basis. The essential condition for the fictional sale as envisaged in Explanation (3b) is the transfer of right to use as distinguished from the permissive right to use. The hiring of a machine facility attached to a factory to various customers on a job work basis does not by itself operate as a transfer of the right to use. It is at best a permission to use and no more. It is at best a fruitful utilization of an asset otherwise lying idle. There is no deemed sale in the case". From the discussions contained in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Tribunal's order extracted above, it is clear that the hydraulic press was part and parcel of the plant and machinery embedded to his factory where the assessee was manufacturing his own goods and that it is only when the factory including the hydraulic press are kept idle for want of own work the respondent allows the customers to use the facility of the hydraulic press within his factory for facilitating the customers to process the raw materials belonging to them. The Tribunal has also found as a fact that the nature of transaction in the present case is the hiring of the hydraulic press to various customers on machine-hour basis and it was further observed that the hiring of a machine facility attached to a factory to various customers on a job work basis does not by itself operate as a transfer of the right to use. According to the Tribunal, it is at best a. permission to use and no more or a fruitful utilisation of an asset otherwise lying idle. 6. As already stated, in order to bring the transaction within the definition of "sale" exigible to tax under the Act, it is necessary that the transaction must be in respect of goods as defined in the Act and also that there should be a transfer of the property in the same by one person to another or a transfer of right to use any goods for any purpose. 7. 7. In the light of the facts as found by the Tribunal, the first thing to be considered in this case is as to whether the rent received by the respondent can be treated as one in respect of the goods. Admittedly the hydraulic press which was allowed to be used for processing the raw materials belonging to the customers on machine-hour basis was part and parcel of the plant and machinery embedded to his factory. The question is whether the hydraulic press used for processing the raw materials belonging to the customers can be said to be goods as defined in S.2(xii) of the Act. 8. The definition of "goods" has already been extracted earlier in this judgment. Only "movable property" is. comprehended within the definition of "goods". The exceptions are only in the case of materials used in works contract and all growing crops, grass, or things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. Thus, it is evident that only movable properly can be the subject-matter of sale exigible to tax under the Act. As already stated, the hydraulic press, the use of which was allowed to various customers was part and parcel of the plant and machinery installed by the respondent in his premises. There is no agreement or understanding between the parties that before the grant of permission to use the hydraulic press by various customers it is to be severed from the earth. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the hydraulic press is movable property felling within the definition of "goods" and therefore the rent received for the use of the hydraulic press by various customers cannot be subjected to tax under the Act. On this short ground, alone, it should have been held that the rent received by the respondent for allowing the use of the hydraulic press by various customers on machine-hour will not come within the extended definition of "sale" exigible to tax under the Act. 9. On this short ground, alone, it should have been held that the rent received by the respondent for allowing the use of the hydraulic press by various customers on machine-hour will not come within the extended definition of "sale" exigible to tax under the Act. 9. That apart, by allowing the use of the hydraulic press installed in the premises of the assessee by various customers on machine-hour basis it cannot be said that there is a transfer of the right to use the hydraulic press by the assessee to various customers so as to attract the provisions of Explanation (3B) to S.2(xxi) of the Act. The question as to whether the lorry hire charges received by an assessee is exigible to tax under the provisions of the Act came up for consideration in the context of the amended definition of "sale" before a Division Bench of this Court in T.R.C. No. 152 of 1987 decided on October 8,1987 (Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. S. bahulayan). This court after adverting to the definitions of "dealer", "sale", particularly explanation (3B) to S.2(xxi), "turnover" and also the provisions of S.5(1)(iii) of the Act held that notwithstanding the very wide language in those provisions the lorry hire charges received by the assessee are not exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. This Court observed that it cannot admit of any doubt that there is no transfer of any right to any person regarding the lorry to use the same for any purpose. This Court also noted that the Appellate Tribunal has held that the assessing authority has not established that there is any transfer of the right by the assessee to use any goods when he sought to impose tax on the amount of hire charges received. This court also noted that it was also held by the Tribunal that there is no transfer of right in the goods, as envisaged in the relevant provisions of the statute, to qualify the amount to be included in the taxable turnover. This Court again had occasion to consider the question as to whether the transaction of lending cassettes to the members on hire would come within the term "sale" as defined in the Act. This Court in that context considered the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. This Court again had occasion to consider the question as to whether the transaction of lending cassettes to the members on hire would come within the term "sale" as defined in the Act. This Court in that context considered the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. (1958) 9 STC 353; AIR 1958 SC 560 where the Supreme Court considered the scope of the expression "sale of good§" as used in the entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and also the Forty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, whereby a new clause, namely, clause (29A) was introduced in Art.366 giving an extended meaning to the words "tax on the sale or purchase of goods" and the consequent amendments to the definition of "dealer" occurring in S.2(viii) and "sale" occurring in S.2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 by the Kerala Finance Act, 1984 which came into effect on April 1, 1984. This Court observed that by the changed definitions of "dealer" and "sale" given in the. Act it is proposed to levy tax on the transfer of right to use any goods and if the petitioner by lending the video cassettes to the members of the library effects a transfer of right to use that goods is liable to be assessed to tax. With reference to the provisions of explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi)of the Act,this Court in O.P. No. 10167 of 1988 observed as follows: "The members of the petitioner's library are given video cassettes on payment of Rs. 10 and the member can retain the cassettes for a period of 2 days and if he keeps these cassettes for more than two days he has to pay additional fee. The member has got exclusive control over the cassettes for the period during which the cassettes are in his custody. It is true that he cannot alter the proceedings or cause damage to the video cassettes. Video cassettes are generally used for viewing the contents recorded therein. For the purpose of using the video cassettes there is transfer of that goods in favour of the customer. It is true that he cannot alter the proceedings or cause damage to the video cassettes. Video cassettes are generally used for viewing the contents recorded therein. For the purpose of using the video cassettes there is transfer of that goods in favour of the customer. Hence we are of the view that the petitioner herein is lending video cassettes to his members of the library, and he is effecting a transfer of right to use video cassettes and he would plainly come within the definition of the term dealer' given in S.2(viii) of the Act and the transfer effected by the petitioner will come within the explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi) of the Act". 10. We have already referred to the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the hiring of a machine facility attached to a factory to various customers on a job work basis does not by itself operate as a transfer of the right to use and that it is at best a permission to use and no more, or a fruitful utilisation of an asset otherwise lying idle. This finding of the Tribunal has not been questioned by the Department. The only contention is that in view of the extended definition of "sale" by Explanation (3B) of S.2(xxi) the transaction will be deemed to be "sale" exigible to tax under the Act. There is no merit in this contention. The transaction in question as found by the Tribunal cannot in any sense be conceived of as a "transfer" understood in the sales tax law. We concur with the finding of the Tribunal that there is no transfer of the right by the assessee to use the hydraulic press by various customers. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in these revisions. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs. Reported as Rohini Panicker v. Additional Sales tax Officer, First Circle, Trivandrum[1997] 104 STC 498(Ker).