Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This tax case revision is filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu State Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 7.6.2013 passed in C.T.S.A.No.575 of 2001, for the assessment year 1986-1987. 2.1. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is a dyeing unit engaged in dyeing works contract and is a registered dealer. In respect of the assessment years 1986-1987 to 1992-1993, the Assessing Officer levied tax on the estimated value of chemicals and dyes on the ground that the above two products were transferred in the dyeing works contract. 2.2. The petitioner challenged the assessment orders by way of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, who, by common order dated 28.6.2000, set aside the levy of tax on the alleged transfer value of chemicals on the ground that there was no transfer of chemicals in the dyeing works contract, as the same are washed away. As regards the dyes used in the dyeing works contract, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, set aside the levy of tax on the transfer value of the dyes in the works contract and held that the adoption of 50% of value of dyes used in the contract will be reasonable and justifiable estimate for determining the taxable turnover under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Anent addition of freight charges and gross profit, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) re-fixed the taxable turnover by adding freight charges at 1% and gross profit at 10% to the taxable turnover determined. 2.3. Assailing the said order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), the department preferred appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. Anent addition of freight charges and gross profit, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) re-fixed the taxable turnover by adding freight charges at 1% and gross profit at 10% to the taxable turnover determined. 2.3. Assailing the said order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), the department preferred appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. In these appeals, the Department challenged only the reduction of freight charges and the gross profit by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) and in regard to deletion of tax on the transfer of chemicals and deletion of tax on the 50% of the value of dyes, the Department accepted the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) and did not dispute the said turnovers in the appeals and the said fact is evident from paragraph (14) of the grounds of appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal, which reads as under: “14. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's giving of full allowance in respect of chemicals and 50% of allowance in deduction in respect of dyes used in the process of dyeing for arriving at the taxable deemed sales of dyes and chemicals is found reasonable and acceptable in view of the facts stated in the previous paras; but the formula adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in arriving at the deemed sale value of dyes by adding 1% towards freight against 2% adopted by the Assessing Officer and uniform rate of 10% towards Gross Profit against the Gross Profit as per account as adopted by the Assessing Officer is not found correct in the absence of any valid reasons adduced in support of his estimation. ....” 2.4. The said appeal filed in the year 2001 was ultimately decided by the Tribunal 7.6.2013 and by that time, a number of events happened that changed the whole scenario of the case. In the meanwhile, in respect of the assessment year 1988-1989, in petitioner's own case, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011, allowed the appeal filed by the Department, by passing the following order: “On notice, the above Tax Case Revision is listed before this Court. The Tax Case Revision is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1988-89. The Tax Case Revision is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1988-89. The following substantial question of law is raised for consideration”- 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that there is no transfer of property involved in the use of dyes in works contract of dyeing and hence not assessable under Section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?' 2. Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue placed before us the order of this Court dated 1.7.2011 passed in T.C.(R) Nos.842, 817, 818, 819 to 823, 826, 841, 843, 849, 850, 870, 982, 987, 990, 1036, 1038 and 1040 of 2006, wherein identical question of law was raised. In the said revision, while considering the decisions reported in Rainbow Colour Lab and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other (2000) 118 STC 9 and Associated Cement Companies Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, (2001) 124 STC 59, this Court held that after introduction of Section 3-B and after amendment made to the definition of 'sale' under Section 2(n)(ii), the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be accepted, since by the operation of law, the transfer of goods involved in works contract would amount to 'sale' taxable under Section 3-B. The assessee therein had purchased the dyes and chemicals from outside State. Consequently, this Court held that entire turnover was assessable to tax. It is seen that this court as regards levy of penalty, set aside the levy since there was no suppression of sale in the turnover. 3. In the circumstances, following the said order, the above Tax Case Revision is allowed thereby the order of the Tribunal is set aside. However, as far as levy of penalty is concerned, we confirm the order of the Tribunal.” 2.5. Following the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Tribunal, in the present case, decided the issues relating to adopting of freight charges at 1% instead of 2% and Gross Profit at 10% instead of determining it as per accounts. In respect of these two issues, the Tribunal held against the Department and in favour of the petitioner. In respect of these two issues, the Tribunal held against the Department and in favour of the petitioner. Besides, the Tribunal also gave a ruling that the entire value of dyes and chemicals involved in the execution of works contract has to be assessed without any allowance. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: 8. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the above said order, we hold that the entire value of dyes and chemicals involved in the execution of works contract has to be assessed without any allowance. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner refixing the taxable turnover by allowing 100% deduction towards chemicals and 50% deduction towards dyes used in the execution of works contract.” 6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7.6.2013 passed by the Tribunal, the present revision is filed raising the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, is it legally correct on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to decide the liability to tax on the turnovers relating to transfer of dyes and chemicals in the dyeing works contract executed by the petitioner, when the revenue has accepted the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode insofar as the turnovers relating to dyes and chemicals and no appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the said turnovers before the Tribunal? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in following the order dated 22.9.2011 of this Court passed in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011, when the said order had been subsequently set aside by this Court by an order dated 20.9.2012 in the Revenue Application No.148/2012? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is correct in fixing the taxable turnover of the petitioner at Rs.4,32,493/- when the fact remains that the Assessing Officer has arrived at the transfer value of dyes and chemicals based on the book turnover only at Rs.2,78,967/- in the assessment order dated 28.12.1999?” 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 4. It is beyond any cavil that the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011, which was heavily relied upon by the Tribunal, came to be reviewed by this Court in Review Application No.148 of 2012, at the instance of the petitioner, and a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.9.2012, held as under: “4. We have perused the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as grounds filed before the Tribunal, wherein, in paragraph 14, the Revenue had restricted its dispute before the Tribunal only as regards arriving at the deemed sale value of dyes by adding 1% towards freight as against 2% and uniform rate of 10% towards Gross Profit as against 20% adopted by the Assessing Officer. 5. A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that it was more concerned about taxability under Section 3-B of the Act and the Tribunal had not adverted to the dispute raised as regards the freight charges. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing the Review Petition, thereby setting aside our order passed in T.C.No.78 of 2011 dated 22.9.2011 and the matter is restored to the files of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue in paragraph 14 and pas orders accordingly.” 5. In effect, on the date when the Tribunal passed the order, namely, 7.6.2013, by virtue of the order dated 20.9.2012 passed in Review Application No.148 of 2012, the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011, has already been set aside and was no more in force. Therefore, the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the value of dyes and chemicals involved in the execution of works contract has to be assessed without any allowance in terms of Section 3-B of the Act. 6. The order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Review Application No.148 of 2012 pertains to the assessment year 1988-1989 and the Tribunal, in respect of the said assessment year, was directed to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue in paragraph (14), referred to above, on merits and pass orders. 7. 6. The order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Review Application No.148 of 2012 pertains to the assessment year 1988-1989 and the Tribunal, in respect of the said assessment year, was directed to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue in paragraph (14), referred to above, on merits and pass orders. 7. In the present case relating to assessment year 1986-1987, we find that in the appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal, more particularly in paragraph (14) of the grounds, there is no dispute raised with regard to the turnover relating to dyes and chemicals involved in the execution of the works contract. The Department did not raise such a plea before the Tribunal. In any event, the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as on the date when the Tribunal decided the issue, an order dated 20.9.2012 was passed in Review Application No.148 of 2012 setting aside the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011. 8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner's revision and the plea raised in the revision that the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the order dated 22.9.2011 made in T.C.(R) No.78 of 2011, which was already set aside by the order dated 20.9.2012 passed in Review Application No.148 of 2012, has to be accepted and same, in our considered opinion, is a tenable plea. 9. The Tribunal having confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) holding the issues relating to freight charges and gross profit in favour of the petitioner, nothing more remains to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The remand order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench in Review Application No.148 of 2012 would not be applicable to the assessment year 1986-1987. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the department. No costs.