Judgment PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated November 7, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The applicant, i.e., Executive Engineer, C.D. - III, U.P.A.V. Parishad, Agra claims itself a semi-Government department and is engaged in the construction of houses. The State of U.P. authorised the applicant to acquire the land for the purposes of carving out plots and for development of residential colonies. It has awarded contract to the contractor for construction of the houses. It has supplied cement and iron to the contractor for the purposes of utilisation in the construction of houses. Under the contract it has been provided that the cost of such cement, etc., shall be deducted in the bill of the contractor. The Trade Tax Department has treated sale of cement and iron thus supplied by the applicant to its contractor and levied sales tax on such sale. It rejected the claim of the applicant that there was no transfer of the property in favour of the contractor supplied by it to the contractor. All the three authorities below have treated the supply of building material to the contractor by the applicant as sale and liable to sales tax. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal the present revision has been filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, has placed reliance upon the terms of the contract entered into in-between the applicant and its contractor. Emphasis has been placed by him on condition No. 3 of the contract. Relevant portion of the said agreement reads as under : "Following materials shall be issued to the contractor at the rate and place specified in the condition as follows. The cost of these materials shall be recovered from the contractor's bill : ... (1) Empty cement bags will have to be returned to Parishad Stores in sound condition failing which (Rs. 2) per bag will be deducted from the contractor's bill for 70 per cent bags and Rs. 0.40 per bag for the remaining 30 per cent bags not returned. No credit will however be given for return of supply bags. (2) Materials provided in the above Schedule shall have to be obtained from the stores. 2) per bag will be deducted from the contractor's bill for 70 per cent bags and Rs. 0.40 per bag for the remaining 30 per cent bags not returned. No credit will however be given for return of supply bags. (2) Materials provided in the above Schedule shall have to be obtained from the stores. In special circumstances when these are not available in store, the contractor may arrange his own after obtaining written permission of the Executive Engineer without entitling him to any compensation. (3) Materials issued in excess of bona fide requirement of work (based on yard stock fixed by the Chief Engineer, U.P., P.W.D., will have to be returned to the Parishad Stores in good condition without any claim for compensation on account of storage, handling or carriage, failing which the cost of the same shall be deducted from contractor's bill at double the rates for cement and one-and-a-half times for steel and other items)." He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.M. Goel & Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon [1989] 72 STC 368; [1990] UPTC 865 inasmuch as essential condition of the contract is at variance with that of the contract involved in the present case. In contra learned Standing Counsel submitted that the controversy in the present case stands concluded by judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Executive Engineer [2005] UPTC 370. The apex court in the case of N.M. Goel & Co. [1989] 72 STC 368; [1990] UPTC 865 has held that the supply of materials for construction of buildings of Public Works Department and deduction of price of materials so supplied and consumed from the final bills by the Public Works Department, amounts to sale of the materials so supplied to the contractor by the Public Works Department. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that clause (10) of the contract in that case was materially different. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that clause (10) of the contract in that case was materially different. He submitted that under clause (10) it was provided that all materials so supplied to the contractor shall remain exclusive property of the Government and any such material remaining unused and in perfectly good condition at the time of completion of the contract shall be returned to the Engineer-in-charge at the place directed by him, if by notice in writing under his hand, he shall so require; but the contractor shall not be entitled to return any such material unless with such consent and shall have no claim for compensation. ... The case of N. M. Goel [1989] 72 STC 368; [1990] UPTC 865 has been subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1998] 109 STC 425; [1998] UPTC 727; [1998] 8 SCC 439. In that case an unsuccessful attempt was made to distinguish the judgment of N.M. Goel & Co. [1989] 72 STC 368 (SC); [1990] UPTC 865, in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. [1998] 109 STC 425; [1998] UPTC 727; [1998] 8 SCC 439. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D. v. Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer [2004] 136 STC 641; [2002] UPTC 1178 has held that by use or consumption of materials supplied in the work of construction, there was passing of property and by virtue of receipt of such transferred property by way of adjustment in bill the consideration has also passed which satisfies the definition of "sale" in the Sales Tax Act. Coming to the fact of the present case it cannot be disputed that on proper construction of the term of contract the property in goods is passed to the contractor. The very opening of Schedule C which contains conditions provides that following materials (cement, mild steel, G.I. pipes) shall be supplied to the contractor at the specified rate and the cost of these materials shall be recovered from the contractor's bills. In view of clear stipulation in-between the dealer and its contractor with regard to the supply of materials and recovery of cost of the materials from the contractor's bill there is a sale in the hands of the dealer. In view of clear stipulation in-between the dealer and its contractor with regard to the supply of materials and recovery of cost of the materials from the contractor's bill there is a sale in the hands of the dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that under condition No. 3 the contractor is obliged to return unused materials in good condition and is not entitled to take away unused materials and will distinguish the ratio of the case of N.M. Goel & Co. [1989] 72 STC 368 (SC); [1990] UPTC 865 is misconceived. The condition No. 3 further stipulates that on failure of return of unused goods the cost of sale shall be deducted from the contractor's bill at double the rate for cement and one-and-half times that for steel and allied goods, runs counter to the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Recently this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Executive Engineer [2005] UPTC 370 has examined the issue in detail and has come to the conclusion that such contract amounts to sale of materials supplied by the contractee to the contractor. In view of the above there is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.