JUDGMENT S.N.Jha, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur and the appellate order of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jamshedpur, to the extent they have held that the 'subsidy' given by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO) is part of the turnover and liable to levy of sales tax. Copies of the said two orders are annexures 1 and 4 to the petition. 2. The petitioner is a Society formed by the employees and officers of the TISCO with the object of providing certain amenities to the employees. It runs a Canteen and a Library for the benefit of the officers and employees of the Company. The management of the Society is done by a Managing Committee. As it is engaged in the sale of edibles, viz. meals, snacks and tea, it has been registered as a dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with respect to their sales. According to the petitioner, the prices of the food items sold by the Canteen are fixed by the Managing Committee from time to time in consultation and agreement with the Canteen Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union, Jamshedpur. The prices so fixed are below the cost price and the deficit i.e. the difference between the cost incurred in running the Canteen and the sale price realised from the customers from sale of food/snacks, is met by the Company by means of subsidy every month. It is said that in respect of sales effected in the month, the petitioner approaches the Company with work-sheet showing the total cost incurred by the petitioner, the sale proceeds realised and the amount of deficit for reimbursement by the Company. It is said that the Company earlier used to reimburse the total deficit, now reimburses only 65% of it by way of subsidy. The reimbursement, according to the petitioner, is wholly gratuitous and depends on the sweet will of the Company. 3. For the period in question, i.e. 1984-85, proceeding for the assessment of sales tax with respect to the sales effected by the petitioner was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur. The petitioner submitted return showing turnover of Rs. 3,38,915.00 by way of sale of food/snacks and receipt of subsidy amounting to Rs. 7,38,480.65 from the Company. For the period in question, i.e. 1984-85, proceeding for the assessment of sales tax with respect to the sales effected by the petitioner was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur. The petitioner submitted return showing turnover of Rs. 3,38,915.00 by way of sale of food/snacks and receipt of subsidy amounting to Rs. 7,38,480.65 from the Company. The Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned assessment order dated December 23, 1989 treated the amount of subsidy, as part of the sale price and thus determined the gross turnover by adding that amount to the turnover returned by the petitioner, and levied sales tax together with additional taxes and surcharge thereon. After adjustment of the payment already made by the petitioner, he raised a demand for Rs.56,153.52. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jamshedpur vide appeal No. 36/89-90, which was finally dismissed on 6.2.1991 Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), it would appear, have taken the view that valuable consideration for sale of food/snacks comprises of the total cost incurred by the petitioner, and simply because the cost is met from two sources one being the price realised from the customers and the other being the subsidy given by the TISCO, it cannot be said that the actual proceeds from the sale of the food/snack alone will constitute the turnover and not the amount of subsidy paid by TISCO to meet the deficit. The petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the said two orders, as stated at the outset. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders and reiterating the reasons mentioned therein. 5. Mr. A.B.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law is settled on the point that the amount of subsidy does not form part of the sale price and cannot be included in the turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax. He placed reliance on Madras Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Spl. Circle-II, Income Tax and Sales Tax Deptt. Ernakulum & ors., (1994) 95 STC 134 , Natraj Organics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax, Muzaffarpur, (1995) 96 STC 261, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors., (1996) 101 STC 487 and Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and Ors., (1996) 103 STC 132 . 6. Ernakulum & ors., (1994) 95 STC 134 , Natraj Organics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax, Muzaffarpur, (1995) 96 STC 261, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors., (1996) 101 STC 487 and Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and Ors., (1996) 103 STC 132 . 6. The principle that subsidy is not includible in the sale price and the gross turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax is applicable only in cases where the sale price is fixed by or under some statute. While the cases of Madras Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (supra), Natraj Organics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (supra) and Rashtiya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., were cases of sale of fertilisers at a price fixed under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of taxes (supra) was a case of sale of Petroleum products at a price fixed under the Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products including Motor Spirits and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1955. The concerned High Courts held that where by a Control Order the price of the goods is fixed by the Government and the seller is not entitled to receive more than the price fixed, the amount given to him (the seller) to compensate the loss that may occur for selling the goods at a controlled price cannot form part of the sale price. The amount of subsidy is actually in the nature of compensation to compensate the seller for the loss, which is not given to help the purchaser, but to give some benefits to the manufacturers. 7. The above principle, however, will have no application where the price is fixed by agreement between two private parties. The law was laid down by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in State of Orissa vs. Utkal Distributor (P) Ltd., (1966) 17 STC 320 . Their Lordships quoted the following observations in Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, vs. M. Krishna Swami Mudaliar & Sons, (1954) 5 STC 88 : "In our opinion, if we may say so with respect, this passage from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice [of the Calcutta High Court in Bata Shoe Co. Their Lordships quoted the following observations in Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, vs. M. Krishna Swami Mudaliar & Sons, (1954) 5 STC 88 : "In our opinion, if we may say so with respect, this passage from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice [of the Calcutta High Court in Bata Shoe Co. case (1949) 1 STC 193] clearly brings out the distinction between cases where the dealer is not authorised by law to collect the tax but all the same adds it to the sale price in the bill of sale and collects it from the customer and cases where the dealer is so authorised. In the former case it is undoubtedly part of the purchase price, as all the collections made by the dealer from the purchaser must be treated as constituting part of the sale price. If, however, under the law, the dealer is empowered to pass on the sales tax to the purchasers, to collect it and pay it to the Government, what he is permitted to so collect under the law would continue to retain its character as tax and it would never form part of the purchase price." and observed as follows : "In our opinion, the fact that the price which the stock-holder was entitled to charge was statutorily fixed and the stock-holder was not entitled to and did not charge more are sufficient to enable us to come to the conclusion that the Central sales tax paid under the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Notification did not form part of the price paid by the customer to the assessee." 8. In the Bihar Finance Act, 'gross turnover" is defined under Section 2(j), to mean (so far as relevant)- For the purposes of levy of sales tax, aggregate of sale prices received and receivable by a dealer during any given period, in respect of sale of goods (including the sale of goods made outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or export) but does not include sale prices of goods or class or classes or description of goods which have borne the incidence of purchase tax under Section 4. The definition of the term 'sale price' under Section 2(u) of the Act runs as follows: "Sales price" means the amount payable to a dealer any valuable consideration in respect of sale or supply of goods. The definition of the term 'sale price' under Section 2(u) of the Act runs as follows: "Sales price" means the amount payable to a dealer any valuable consideration in respect of sale or supply of goods. Explanation I.-Sale price shall include any amount charged by the dealer for anything done in respect of the goods at the time of, or before delivery thereof to the buyer, Explanation II.-Sale price shall not include the cash discount allowed by the dealer according to the ordinary trade practice if shown separately. It shall also not include the cost for transport of the goods from the seller to the buyer provided such cost is separately charged to the buyer." The definition of the term 'Taxable turnover', which appears as a substantive provision under Section 21 of the Act lays down "For the purpose of this part the taxable turnover of a dealer shall be that part of his gross turnover which remains after deducting therefrom- There is nothing in any of the clauses of the above Section to suggest that any amount received by the dealer to meet the deficit of the cost of the goods as subsidy or otherwise is to be excluded from the purview of taxable turnover. 9. It is an admitted position that under an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the TISCO, the petitioner supplied snacks etc. to the customers i.e. employees of the TISCO at a fixed cost and realised only part of such cost from the employees, the balance was paid by the TISCO. In other words, admittedly the total cost of the goods was realised by the petitioner from two sources as sale proceeds of the goods from the customers and as contribution from the TISCO. There was no statutory control over such fixation of price or cost. It depended on the sweet will and conscious agreement between the two. Payment of part of the cost as contribution, therefore, certainly formed part of total consideration for sale. It is not insignificant that the term sale price has been defined, as noted above, to meet the amount payable to the dealer as valuable consideration in respect of sale or supply of goods. Sales tax is primarily a levy on the transaction of sale and sales tax becomes leviable the moment there is transfer of property in goods. It is not insignificant that the term sale price has been defined, as noted above, to meet the amount payable to the dealer as valuable consideration in respect of sale or supply of goods. Sales tax is primarily a levy on the transaction of sale and sales tax becomes leviable the moment there is transfer of property in goods. From where the consideration is received immediately or later, or not received at all, due to the default on the part of the purchaser, is of no consequence. The valuable consideration for the goods supplied viz. meals/snacks or Tea being the total fixed cost calculated by the petitioner, it makes no difference whether it has been realised from one source or different sources. 10. In the above premises, I do not think the revenue has committed any error of law in including the amount contributed by TISCO in the sale price and taxable turnover of the petitioner and levying sales tax thereon. 11. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. I agree. .