JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR J. - These four revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 3, 1999 relating to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Opposite party is a transport company and engaged in transporting the goods of various parties from one place to another. Opposite party owns some tankers. It appears that during the years under consideration, opposite party entered into an agreement with Indian Oil Corporation for the transportation of petroleum products from one place to another and received transportation charges. The assessing authority levied the tax on the transportation charges on the ground that the tankers were provided on hire to Indian Oil Corporation for the transportation of the petroleum products. Thus, there was transfer of right to use the tankers and, therefore, such charges were held liable to tax under section 3F of the Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders, opposite party filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeals and set aside the assessment orders. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed all the appeals. The Tribunal held that under the terms of the agreement opposite party had to transport the petroleum products from one place to another. All the expenses were being borne by the opposite party and the control and possession of the tanker always remained with the opposite party. In view of above, it has been held that the possession and control of the tankers have never been transferred to Indian Oil Corporation and, therefore, the provisions of section 3F of the Act were not applicable. Heard Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party. Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel very fairly referred to some of the clauses of the agreement, which have been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, particularly clause Nos. 4, 8 and 9 to show that all the expenses were borne by the opposite party. Permit, etc., under the Motor Vehicle Act were also obtained by the opposite party. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. 4, 8 and 9 to show that all the expenses were borne by the opposite party. Permit, etc., under the Motor Vehicle Act were also obtained by the opposite party. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. The Tribunal has categorically recorded the finding that the control and possession of the tankers have never been transferred by the opposite party to the Indian Oil Corporation and always remained with the opposite party. Necessary expenses were borne by the opposite party. The learned Standing Counsel is not able to show from the agreement that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous. Section 3F of the Act reads as follows : "Section 3F. Rate of tax on the right to use any goods or goods involved in the execution of a works contract. - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3A, or section 3AAA or section 3D, the turnover relating to the business of transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose or of transfer of the property in the goods whether as goods or in some other form involved in the execution of a works contract shall be determined in the manner prescribed and shall be liable to tax at such rate not exceeding fifteen per cent, as the State Government may, by notification, declare and different rates may be declared for different goods or different classes of dealers." The bare perusal of section 3F of the Act shows that the provision of section 3F is applicable only in cases where there is transfer of right to use the goods. Similar question came up for consideration in Kandoi Transport v. S.T.O., Assessment Unit, Barbil [1992] 43 STL 67 (Orissa). In this case also the petitioner entered into a contract with Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., for transportation work including loading, unloading and stacking. The contention of the transporter was that there was no transaction of sale and that the contract was for purely labour and service. The department, however, contended that "hire charges" received by the transporter come within the definition of "sale price". Considering the enlarged definition of "sale" in view of the Constitutional amendment, the Orissa High Court held as follows : "... The department, however, contended that "hire charges" received by the transporter come within the definition of "sale price". Considering the enlarged definition of "sale" in view of the Constitutional amendment, the Orissa High Court held as follows : "... In order to decide whether a transaction is of 'sale', the determinative factor is whether any transfer of right of user is involved. By way of illustration we may indicate that if 'A' allows his vehicle to be used by 'B' for a consideration, and the vehicle is placed at the control, custody and possession of 'B', it may be a case of transfer of the right to use the vehicle for any purpose. Where, however, the control, custody, and possession over the vehicle remains with 'A', notwithstanding the fact that certain amounts were received as hire charges, no transfer of the right to use is involved." In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Visakhapatnam [1990] 77 STC 182 (AP), the petitioner which owned the Visakhapatnam Steel Project, for the purpose of the steel project, allotted different parts of the project work to contractors. To facilitate the execution of work by the contractors with the use of sophisticated machinery, the petitioner had undertaken to supply the machinery to the contractors for the purpose of being used in the execution of the contracted works of the petitioner and received charges for the same. The respondents made a provisional assessment in view of the enlarged definition of "sale". Then the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that under the agreement, the effective control of the machinery, even while the machinery was in the use of the contractor, was that of the petitioner - company. The contractor was not free to make use of the same for other works or move it out during the period the machinery was in his use. Therefore, the contractor was entitled to make use of the machinery for purpose of execution of the works of the petitioner and there was no transfer of the right to use it as such in favour of the contractor. This is how the court held that the hire charges collected by the petitioner from the contractors were not exigible to sales tax. To come to this conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. This is how the court held that the hire charges collected by the petitioner from the contractors were not exigible to sales tax. To come to this conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 87, page 892 which emphasised that the essence of transfer is passage of control over the economic benefits of property which results in terminating rights and other relations in one entity and creating them in another. While construing the word "transfer" due regard must be had to the thing to be transferred. A transfer of the right to use the goods necessarily involves delivery of possession by the transferor to the transferee. Delivery of possession of a thing must be distinguished from its custody. It is not uncommon to find the transferee of goods in possession while transferor is having custody. Against the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed special leave petition before the apex court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. reported in [2002] 126 STC 114; [2002] 2 JT (SC) 493. The apex court had affirmed the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and held as follows : "The High Court after scrutiny and close examination of the clauses contained in the agreement and looking to the agreement as a whole, in order to determine the nature of the transaction, concluded that the transactions between the respondent and contractors did not involve transfer of right to use the machinery in favour of the contractors and in the absence of satisfying the essential requirement of section 5E of the Act, i.e., transfer of right to use machinery, the hire charges collected by the respondent from the contractors were not exigible to sales tax. On a careful reading and analysis of the various clauses contained in the agreement and, in particular, looking to clauses 1, 5, 7, 13 and 14, it becomes clear that the transaction did not involve transfer of right to use the machinery in favour of contractors. The High Court was right in arriving at such a conclusion. On a careful reading and analysis of the various clauses contained in the agreement and, in particular, looking to clauses 1, 5, 7, 13 and 14, it becomes clear that the transaction did not involve transfer of right to use the machinery in favour of contractors. The High Court was right in arriving at such a conclusion. In the impugned order, it is stated and rightly so in our opinion, that the effective control of the machinery even while the machinery was in use of the contractor was that of the respondent - company, the contractor was not free to make use of the machinery for the works other than the project work of the respondent or move it out during the period the machinery was in his use; the condition that the contractor would be responsible for the custody of the machinery while it was on the site did not militate against respondent's possession and control of the machinery." A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in the case of Ahuja Goods Agency v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1997] 106 STC 540; [1997] 11 NTN 484. The petitioner received transportation charges from a distillery in connection with the transportation of Indian - made foreign liquor from distillery to various Government - bonded warehouses. The question for consideration was whether the transportation charges were liable to tax under section 3F of the Act. The contention of the petitioner was that the transportation charges were paid for service under the agreement and there was no transfer of right to use the vehicle. The Division Bench examined the agreement and held that the truck to be used for carrying the goods will continue to remain in the custody of the drivers employed by the owners of the trucks. The distillery could have used the vehicle only for the purpose of specified goods and not for any other purposes. The transit risk was of the petitioner and not of the distillery. It was the duty of the transporter to abide by all the laws relating to the motor vehicle and the excise. From these factors, it is manifest that there was no transfer of possession even of the vehicle, which was being used for carrying the goods. The transit risk was of the petitioner and not of the distillery. It was the duty of the transporter to abide by all the laws relating to the motor vehicle and the excise. From these factors, it is manifest that there was no transfer of possession even of the vehicle, which was being used for carrying the goods. On these facts the Division Bench held that in the absence of transfer of possession of vehicle there was no transfer of right to use the goods and the provisions of section 3F of the Act shall not be applicable. In view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions of the High Court and the apex court, it is clear that for the transfer of right to use the goods and to invoke the provisions of section 3F of the Act, it is necessary that there should be transfer of effective control of the goods in favour of the party. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 6 JT 114 (SC), the apex court held that for the transfer of right to use the goods, goods must be at a deliverable stage and at some stage it should be delivered. This court, in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Jamuna Prosad Jaiswal, Allahabad, reported in [2008] 13 VST 403 (All); [2006] UPTC 285, held that unless possession and control of the goods is transferred there cannot be transfer of right to use the goods under section 3F of the Act. In view of the above law laid down in the aforesaid decision by the apex court and the High Courts, it is clear that for the transfer of right to use the goods and to invoke the provision of section 3F of the Act, the delivery of the possession is sine qua non. In view of the above, all the revisions have no merit. Order of the Tribunal is upheld. In the result, all the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.