JUDGMENT CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The above Tax Case Revision is filed at the instance of the assessee as against the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessment year 1991-92. The above Tax Case Revision was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether in admitted facts of the case and legal position when Section 2(g) of the Central Sales Act includes 'transfer of goods' under hire purchase in the definition of sale, the issue of time of passing of property and place of delivery are irrelevant for the purpose of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.”? (2) “Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in considering that in a hire purchase transactions there are two deliveries, namely, one from the assessee to the hirer from the inter-state stream and delivery of the hirer to himself, when in a case of hire purchase transaction all that is required under Section 3(b) is transfer of documents of title when the goods are in interstate movement."? 2. The assessee is a Government of India undertaking to promote small scale industries by providing financial and business assistance. In respect of machineries purchased from outside Tamil Nadu, the assessee effected sale while in transit. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The claim of the assessee was however reconsidered in the reassessment proceedings; ultimately, after giving opportunity to the assessee, reassessment order was passed, thereby, the Assessing Authority rejected the claim of exemption. The Assessing Authority viewed that the assessee entered into hire purchase agreement with the manufacturers in Tamil Nadu. The machinery required by the manufacturers were provided by the assessee by purchasing them from other states. After purchasing it from outside state dealers, the assessee gave dispatch instructions to consign the goods directly to the hirer inside Tamil Nadu, who had entered into hire purchase agreement with the assessee. The Assessing Authority viewed that the contract of hire purchase had several clauses to show that the property in goods shall always vest with the assessee and that the hirer shall take delivery of the goods as bailee. Several clauses in the hire purchase agreement stipulated upkeep, maintenance of the machine in the capacity of bailee with right to use as a hirer. Several clauses in the hire purchase agreement stipulated upkeep, maintenance of the machine in the capacity of bailee with right to use as a hirer. Thus, the property in goods did not pass from the seller to the buyer and the assessee never intended that property in the goods should pass on to the hirer at the time when endorsement of sale was made in the document of title. As such, the question of giving benefit of Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act did not arise. Thus, applying the decision of this Court reported in (1992) 86 STC 554 – TVL. SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES v. STATE OF TAMILNADU, the claim of the assessee was rejected. The Assessing Officer further viewed that in a hire purchase agreement there were two sales, one by the dealer to the financier and the other by the financier to the intending purchaser. Thus, he rejected the claim of the assessee. While so assessing the turnover, penalty was also confirmed under Section 16(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who partly allowed the appeal by holding that penalty alone be set aside and confirmed the assessment. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on further appeal Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. After referring to the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and pointing out to the difference in the language of the definition of 'sale' under Section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal viewed that in the absence of transfer of property in goods, the assessee could not have carried out subsequent interstate sales under the Central Sales Tax Act by endorsing the documents of title to the goods. In the circumstances, the Tribunal confirmed the the assessment. Aggrieved by the same, present revision by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 120 STC 1 – JAY BHARAT CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND ANOTHER and submitted that considering the difference in the definition of 'sale' under Central Sales Tax Act, to attract levy of Central Sales Tax Act, in a hire purchase transaction, it is enough that there is transfer of goods on hire purchase. When the Revenue does not dispute the other aspects of endorsement, the Tribunal committed serious error in rejecting the assessee's plea. 4. We agree with the contention of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. It is no doubt true that the point raised in the decision of the Apex Court arose under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. Nevertheless, given the fact that the definition of 'sale' under the State enactment is pari materia with the definition of 'sale' under the Central Sales Tax Act, and that the issue considered therein also related to a case of hire purchase, the decision of the Apex Court would squarely apply to the case on hand. The Apex Court referred to the definition of sale under Section 2(g) and pointed out to the use of the two expressions viz., "transfer of property in goods" and "transfer of goods" and referred to the decision reported in [1961] 12 STC 489 – INSTALMENT SUPPLY (PRIVATE) LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA, and held that, "............. the definition in section 2(g) included not only what was compendiously described as a sale under the Sale of Goods Act, but also transactions, which, strictly speaking, are not sales, not even contracts of sale but only contain an element of sale which is the option to purchase and that is why the explanation to section 2(g) ended with the words "be deemed to be a sale", thereby indicating that a legal fiction has been introduced into the concept of sale as ordinarily understood. It was clarified that the explanation included within its amplitude a mere transfer of goods without the transfer of title to the goods if it was in the course of an agreement of the nature of hire-purchase". 5. The definition 2(g) included not only the sale as described in the Sale of Goods act, but also transactions which strictly speaking are not sales, but contained elements of sale which is the option to purchase. It further observed that considering the usage of 'transfer of goods' for the leviable tax as a sale, there is no requirement that the property in goods should be transferred. It observed that, ".......... What is required is transfer of goods, unlike the first part of this definition which requires transfer of property in goods. It further observed that considering the usage of 'transfer of goods' for the leviable tax as a sale, there is no requirement that the property in goods should be transferred. It observed that, ".......... What is required is transfer of goods, unlike the first part of this definition which requires transfer of property in goods. The reason for this is very obvious. In the case of hire purchase, there are two elements, namely, that of bailment and an element of sale and when a hire purchase agreement is entered into there is transfer of goods on hire purchase which would not include, at that point of time, any transfer of property in the said goods. If the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is accepted, the effect of that would be that the latter portion of the definition could be otiose. If the definition of Section 2(g) was to include within its ambit only that transfer which takes place at the time of purchase when the option is exercised, then it would not have been necessary to widen the scope of the definition to include transfer of goods on hire purchase and to provide for it separately." 6. The definition of 'sale' under the Central Sales Tax Act, as is relevant for the year under consideration viz., 1991-92, reads as follows:- "2(g) Sale with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration and includes a transfer of goods on the hire purchase or other system of payment by instalments, but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods. " 7. The said definition was however amended under Section 150 of the Finance Act, (No.20 of) 2002 with effect from 11.5.2002. Even therein, delivery of goods on hire purchase or in system of payment by instalments is treated as deemed sale. Considering the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court on a similarly worded provision, which was also seen in the context of the provision of definition of 'sale' under the Central Sales Tax Act, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee that the claim of transit sale merits acceptance. 8. Considering the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court on a similarly worded provision, which was also seen in the context of the provision of definition of 'sale' under the Central Sales Tax Act, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee that the claim of transit sale merits acceptance. 8. Considering the undisputed fact that there is an endorsement of title to the goods while in transit, following the Apex Court decision cited supra, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee, thereby setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the above Tax Case (Revision) is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.