ORDER V. DHANAPALAN, J. - The orders under challenge in these writ petitions are the orders passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in assessment orders CST 466175/2000-01 and CST 466175/2001-02 dated July 31, 2007, which were received by the petitioner on August 20, 2007. These writ petitions are filed to quash these orders and to direct the second respondent to pass orders as per the clarifications of the first respondent by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. According to the petitioner, they are the registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and an assessee on the file of the second respondent. They are the manufacturer of common salt. They purchase the salt within the State and sell it within the State and claim exemption on the sales of common salt under Sl. No. 7 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. It is their further case that the second respondent checked their accounts for the purpose of final assessment and issued pre-assessment notices, wherein the second respondent has proposed to levy tax on the freight charges on turnover of Rs. 4,73,420 and Rs. 17,60,472 at the rate of 10 per cent which is an estimation of the freight charges. This calculation is on the sales turnover of the salt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The reasons stated by the second respondent for levying tax on the freight charges is that the goods were delivered at the buyer's place at Kerala. The assessments were done after a period of two years and ten months in the proceedings dated July 31, 2007. Detailed objections were made on September 17, 2004 with a request to accord personal hearing before finalising the issue. However, it has not been considered by the respondents. In earlier assessment years, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Tirunelveli and they have been allowed. Hence the petitioner preferred appeals in the present matters also, but the same were dismissed for the reasons stated therein. As the second respondent has passed the orders without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner is before this court to challenge the above proceedings. Hence the petitioner preferred appeals in the present matters also, but the same were dismissed for the reasons stated therein. As the second respondent has passed the orders without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner is before this court to challenge the above proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a settled legal position that before passing the assessment order, there must be an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This has been dispensed with by the respondents and hence the assessments made are contrary to the established Rules. Therefore, the assessments made by the respondents are not in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court in W.P. (MD) No. 6654 of 2007 dated September 11, 2007 and this court held that the assessment order cannot be sustained on the ground that the respondents have not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that therefore, the matter was remanded back to the respondents for further consideration after giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The respondents have filed a counter, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner has filed these writ petitions against the order of assessments made under the CST Act, 1956 in CST 466175/00-01 dated July 31, 2007 and CST 466175/01-02 dated July 31, 2007 seeking remedy to quash the same and direct the second respondent to pass order as per the clarification of the first respondent by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been assessed under the CST Act, 1956 for the year 2000-01 and 2001-02 determining the total and taxable turnover as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------- Year 2000-01 Year 2001-02 ------------------------------------------------------------- Total turnover determined Rs. 52,19,620 Rs. 34,46,719 ------------------------------------------------------------- Taxable turnover determined Rs. 52,19,620 Rs. 34,46,719 ------------------------------------------------------------- Turnover reported Rs. 47,46,200 Rs. 16,86,246 ------------------------------------------------------------- It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner disputes a turnover of Rs. 4,73,420 for the year 2000-01 and Rs. 17,60,472 for the year 2001-02, which relates to the amount received by the petitioner on the sales of industrial salt as freight charges. 52,19,620 Rs. 34,46,719 ------------------------------------------------------------- Turnover reported Rs. 47,46,200 Rs. 16,86,246 ------------------------------------------------------------- It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner disputes a turnover of Rs. 4,73,420 for the year 2000-01 and Rs. 17,60,472 for the year 2001-02, which relates to the amount received by the petitioner on the sales of industrial salt as freight charges. It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that the assessment for the previous years 1994-95 and 1995-96 in which orders passed on the same issue, were contested in appeal and the appellate authority has allowed the appeal in A.P. No. 58 of 1999 on February 24, 2000 and the second appeal filed by the State was also dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madurai in MTSA Nos. 298 and 299 of 2004 dated October 28, 2004. It is also submitted that the State has filed a writ petition against the order of the Tribunal before this court which is pending in W.P. No. 666 of 2006. It is therefore, submitted that the findings of the Tribunal need not be followed for the purpose of assessment for the subsequent years. It is also submitted in the counter that the respondents have extracted a procedure for sampling and analysis stating that a representative sample will be taken from each truck load and a portion of the same will be analysed in the laboratory and based on the same, a complete position of the salt will be analysed, which will be applicable for the entire quantity supplied during that fortnight and the buyer's sampling and analysis shall be final and binding on the suppliers. Despatch details of the salt in the factory and the freight charges, including the loading expenses, are also explained in the counter. It is also stated in the counter that the bill rate is on Ex-factory rate basis only and the actual transactions were made only on F.O.R. destination of the buyer as per the agreement and that too, only after analysing the sample taken from the truck load at buyer's laboratory. It is also stated in the counter that the bill rate is on Ex-factory rate basis only and the actual transactions were made only on F.O.R. destination of the buyer as per the agreement and that too, only after analysing the sample taken from the truck load at buyer's laboratory. Further, reliance has been made in a batch of cases in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. wherein it was held that it is the amount for which the goods are bought or sold which form part of the turnover and a thing can be sold only when the transactions fall within the scope of the definition of sale. Here, the transfer of property of goods were made available at the buyer's place under the obligation of contract and therefore, the expenditure incurred by the seller towards transport of goods in order to carry the goods from his place of manufacture to the place of destination will clearly fall within the scope of turnover. Accordingly, the assessments have been made. The respondents have relied on a decision of the apex court reported in the case of Black Diamond Beverages v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Assessment Wing, Calcutta [1997] 107 STC 219 where a definition of sale price in section 2(d) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, has been made. They also relied on the decision of this court in the case of India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 136 STC 285. In that decision, this court has held that when the transfer of property or the goods is to be at the place of the buyer to which the seller is under an obligation to transport the goods, the expenditure incurred by the seller on freight in order to carry the goods from his place of manufacture to the place at which he is required under the contract to deliver would thus become part of the amount for which the goods are sold by the seller to the buyer and would fall within the scope of turnover. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that the objections were considered and therefore there is no necessity to provide personal hearing to the petitioner. Heard Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that the objections were considered and therefore there is no necessity to provide personal hearing to the petitioner. Heard Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and the decision produced by the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record. I am not inclined to look into the other aspects of the matter, except opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner - corporation are the manufacturers of common salt and they purchase the common salt within the State and sell within the State as well as outside the State of Tamil Nadu. Further it is seen that the assessments made by the second respondent have been calculated based on the relevant provisions under the Rules contemplated. However, there were objections by the petitioner, but those objections have to be considered only after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and therefore, non-affording of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner has vitiated the proceedings of the second respondent and on that sole ground, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. However, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the matter has to be decided afresh taking note of the assessments made as well as the objections submitted by the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents. The respondents shall issue a notice within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner, after fixing a date for personal hearing. On the date fixed for personal hearing, the petitioner shall appear before the respondents and they shall be heard. Consequently, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 7621 and 7622 of 2007 are closed. No costs. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity of personal hearing provided by the respondents, the petitioner will forfeit this opportunity. Consequently, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 7621 and 7622 of 2007 are closed. No costs. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity of personal hearing provided by the respondents, the petitioner will forfeit this opportunity. After hearing the petitioner personally, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders of final assessment within a period of six weeks thereafter.