JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Hawelia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 2. This writ petition is directed against the revisional order dated March 15, 1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati on the revision petition filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-95 under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner is a public company and is a Government of India Enterprise having its registered office in New Delhi. The petitioner-company is engaged in business of manufacture, sale and supply of papers for which the petitioner purchases and extracts bamboos to be used as raw materials on the basis of agreements entered into. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner-company entered into an agreement with the Government of Assam and the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) for extracting bamboos. Copy of the agreement has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure 1. As per the agreement made with the Government and the Council, the petitioner from a period of 30 years from September 15,1979 in the case of Nagaon project and from September 15, 1980 in the case of Cachar project shall be provided such forest areas as would yield annually, the required quantity of approximately 2.5 lakhs tonnes of air dry bamboos. The petitioner is to pay royalty for the purpose of extraction of the bamboos and the question that arose for consideration was as to whether on extraction of bamboos as per the terms of the agreement on payment of royalty for purchase or sale of bamboos, the petitioner was liable for tax under the AGST Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the authority that as per the transaction involved, the petitioner is liable to pay tax, preferred revision application, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated March 15, 1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Dr. Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex court reported in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2005] 142 STC 1 : [2005] 6 SCC 499. 5. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Dr. Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex court reported in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2005] 142 STC 1 : [2005] 6 SCC 499. 5. Referring to the aforesaid two decisions, he submits that the decision taken by the revisional authority in the impugned order is contradictory to the principles laid down by the apex court. He submits that even the Commissioner of Taxes in a later decision on June 12, 2000 a copy of which has been annexed to the reply affidavit as annexure 1, has held that the kind of transaction involved is not considered as purchase price and there is no liability to pay tax under the AGST Act. In the said order, the Commissioner placed reliance on the decision of Titaghur Paper Mills [1985] 3 SCR 26. 6. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, fairly submits that the principles laid down in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills [1985] 3 SCR 26, are applicable to the instant case. 7. By the said decision, it has been held by the apex court that the royalty paid by the petitioner cannot be considered as purchase price and so in case of any inter-State sale by the petitioner, he cannot be made liable to pay any tax under the Act. In the instant case also, the petitioner has entered into an agreement for extraction on payment of royalty. 8. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated March 15, 1999 (annexure 3) and the consequential assessment order dated November 21, 1997 (annexure 2) passed by the Superintendent of Taxes. 9. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. In favour of Department.