ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ to declare Section 2(36) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act as ultra vires, to quash the reassessment orders dated 11-3-2011 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, Annexures H, J and K respectively and also the order dated 25-03-2011 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 as per Annexures L and M and for other reliefs. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in trading of house articles, electric and electronic goods. The petitioner has been registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the KVAT Act). Petitioner further contends that it is paying service tax under the provisions of Central Government Finance Act, 1994. For the assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 the petitioner regularly filed returns on the turnover and remitted the tax after claiming permissible deductions. Even on the service rendered by the petitioner the petitioner company filed returns and paid service tax as applicable under the Finance Act of 1994. 2. In the year 2010 respondent No. 1 inspected the business premises of the petitioner and issued a proposition notice dated 29-12-2010 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 proposing various disallowances and levy of Value Added Tax on various issues. The main disallowance in the proposition notice relates to installation charges and transportation charges. The petitioner submitted reply on 10-1-2011 inter alia contending that installation charges and transportation charges are not part of sale price. These charges are collected separately under different heads. On these charges the petitioner company has paid service tax to the Central Government. Therefore the petitioner company opposed the disallowance proposed in the proposition notice. Respondent No. 1 by considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned reassessment orders Annexures H, J and K for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 3. Similar proposition notices were issued by respondent No. 1 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. By considering the reply submitted by the petitioner reassessment orders dated 25-3-2011 came to be passed for these assessment years as per Annexures L and M. Further demand notices were also issued as per Annexure N. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned reassessment Orders is before this Court. 4. By considering the reply submitted by the petitioner reassessment orders dated 25-3-2011 came to be passed for these assessment years as per Annexures L and M. Further demand notices were also issued as per Annexure N. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned reassessment Orders is before this Court. 4. Sri K.P. Kumar learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner company contends that the installation charges and transportation charges are not included in the value of the goods sold by the petitioner company. The value of the goods sold alone shall be subject to the payment of Value Added Tax in terms of Section 3 of the KVAT Act. The manufacturers supplied the goods to the petitioner specifies the sale price of the goods and the same is excluding the installation charges and transportation charges. Even in the invoices issued by the petitioner it is specifically stated that the prices are ex-showroom prices and delivery will be made only on the request of the customer at their costs, risk and responsibility. Therefore the installation charges and transport charges are exclusive of the sale price. After the sale of goods at the show room the petitioner company work as agents of buyers for the purpose of installation and transportation. These installation charges and transportation charges are collected separately and the same do not form part of sale price of goods. For the service rendered by the petitioner company they have collected the service charges and as per the Finance Act of 1994 service tax is paid as is applicable. No arguments are addressed on the question of legality of section 2(36) of the KVAT Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. SKY Gourmet Catering (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [W.A. Nos. 671-726/2011, disposed on 18-4-2011] 2. A.V. Fernandez Vs. The State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657 3. State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd., (2000) 10 SCC 531 4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1383 5. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2005 SC 3020 6. Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, (2008) 56 BLJR 1038 7. Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, (2010) 2 UD 420 8. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2005 SC 3020 6. Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, (2008) 56 BLJR 1038 7. Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, (2010) 2 UD 420 8. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1982) 49 STC 73 Mad 5. Per contra Sri. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader supports the impugned reassessment orders. It is contended that the installation charges and transport charges are part of sale price as per Section 2(35) and (36) of the KVAT Act. It is contended that there is obligation on the part of the petitioner to transport the goods sold and also to install the same. Therefore the charges collected for this purpose will amount to part of sale price of goods. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. Apco Concrete Block and Allied Products v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [STA No. 84/2009 disposed on 8-7-2010] 2. India Meters Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, JT (2010) 9 SC 373 6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. On the basis of pleadings and arguments the following point will arise for my consideration: Whether the installation charges and transport charges are part and parcel of sale price in the instant case? 7. Section 2(34) of the KVAT Act defines what is "Taxable turnover". Section 2(35) defines "Total turnover" and Section 2(36) defines "Turnover". On the basis of pleadings and arguments the following point will arise for my consideration: Whether the installation charges and transport charges are part and parcel of sale price in the instant case? 7. Section 2(34) of the KVAT Act defines what is "Taxable turnover". Section 2(35) defines "Total turnover" and Section 2(36) defines "Turnover". For the purpose of this case, it is necessary to extract Section 2(36) of the KVAT Act and the same reads as under: "Turnover" means the aggregate amount for which goods are sold or distributed or delivered or otherwise disposed of in any of the ways referred to in clause (29) by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his own account or on account of others, whether for such or for deferred payment of other valuable consideration, and includes the aggregate amount for which goods are purchased from a person not registered under the Act and the value of goods transferred or dispatched outside the State otherwise than by way of sale, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed the amount for which goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of or before the delivery thereof; 8. A reading of the above Section specifies Turnover means the aggregate amount for which goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of or before the delivery thereof. When the transfer of title in the goods is to be at the place of buyer then all charges incidental thereto like transport of goods, installation charges and other expenditures incurred by the seller would become part of amount for which the goods are sold by the seller to the buyer. If the transfer of title of goods is to be at the place of seller then the subsequent charges for transporting goods, installation and other expenditure do not form part of amount for which the goods are sold. If the sale agreement specifies an obligation on the part of the seller to transport the goods as incidental to the sale then the same becomes part of the amount for which the goods are sold. It is in this background it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. 9. If the sale agreement specifies an obligation on the part of the seller to transport the goods as incidental to the sale then the same becomes part of the amount for which the goods are sold. It is in this background it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. 9. Petitioner is engaged in trading of house hold articles, electrical and electronic goods etc. manufactured by other companies. Petitioners have produced the price lists issued by the manufacturers. A perusal of these price lists specify that the prices are exclusive of installation charges. Further the invoices raised by the petitioners specifies that the prices of goods are ex-showroom price. It further specifies that transfer of title in goods takes place at the place of seller. Therefore, the sale price of the goods at the ex-showroom price attracts sales tax. Subsequent to the transfer of title in the goods at the place of seller they Act as agents of customers for transportation of goods and to installation purpose. Therefore the transportation charges and the installation charges do not become the part of sale price of the goods. The invoices produced by the petitioner specifies under different heads, the sale price of the goods, the transportation charges and the installation charges. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. In the instant case, the petitioners have collected transportation charges and the installation charges from the customers under different heads in the invoices raised by them. Further it is not in dispute that the petitioners have paid service tax on these transportation charges and installation charges. Thus the petitioners have discharged their legal obligation of paying the service tax on the services rendered by them. The State Government cannot enrich by wrongly bringing the transportation charges and the installation charges as part of sale price of the goods. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the point in negative. For the reasons stated above, the following: (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 11-3-2011 as per Annexures H, J and K and the orders dated 25-3-2011 as per Annexures L and M are hereby quashed. (iii) Ordered accordingly.