JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 24th of September 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Bench at Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, after examining the matter in its entirety, has found that there was no transfer of property in the goods from respondent-assessee to M/s. Larsen & Toubro (for short, 'L&T'), the contractor, and it had not received valuable consideration so as to constitute a sale. With this categorical finding, the learned Tribunal while allowing the petition of the respondent-assessee has quashed the notice dated 24th of May 1990 and subsequent notices and proceedings under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. 2. The facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that at the threshold the second respondent issued an order dated 18th January 1984 in the name of L&T, which was in substance an agreement between both the parties as it was signed by the Managing Director of second respondent and by the authorised representative of L&T. In terms of the agreement, the second respondent has placed an order of drawing/specifications for supply of certain machineries and the said agreement was inclusive of certain headings like price, scope of supply, delivery, and terms of payment, performance guarantee and giving formal agreement. The order/agreement dated 18th of January 1984 was followed by yet another agreement dated 21st of June 1987 between both the parties. The agreement dated 21st of June 1987 envisaged a specific condition with emphasis about supply of machineries by the second respondent to L&T, which according to petitioner revenue was transaction of sale by the second respondent and purchase by L&T from second respondent. For substantiating the assertion that the transaction as such amounts to sale, debit advice of different dates and denominations, four in number, were relied upon by the petitioners. For substantiating the assertion that the transaction as such amounts to sale, debit advice of different dates and denominations, four in number, were relied upon by the petitioners. Highlighting the recitals contained in the debit advices, the petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that it contains valuation of the supplied machineries by the second respondent to L&T indicating that the aforesaid supplies were for valuation and consideration to bring it within the ambit of sale by second respondent to L&T. While admitting the fact that the earlier assessment was made for the Assessment Year 1985-86, without construing this sort of arrangement as a sale, it is submitted by the petitioner revenue that this vital fact escaped the attention of the Assessing Authority at the time of making regular assessment which has resulted in not taxing the said sales under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Subsequent to that, the Commercial Taxes Department made inspection of the premises of second respondent on 21st of May 1990 and during inspection it was revealed that it is involved in tax evasion and has managed to conceal sale transactions by resorting to methodology of debit vouchers/advices. As per the petitioners, during inspection, some discrepancies were also noticed in the dealings of second respondent and the said L&T and as a consequence thereof a detailed report on 21st of May 1990 was prepared. Taking note of the report and on noticing illegality by the Assessee and its attempt to evade tax, the second petitioner issued a show cause notice dated 24th of May 1990 for reopening assessment of the said Assessment Year 1985-86 under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In the show cause notice, the alleged amount which escaped from imposition of tax was also incorporated. Pursuant to the show cause notice, reply was submitted by the second respondent but the same was not found to be satisfactory. In this view of the matter, a final show cause notice was issued on 3rd of April 1991 for imposition of tax for aforesaid transactions but even in adherence of the second show cause notice the assesses has not made sincere endeavour to satisfy the Assessing Authority about the alleged dubious transactions of sale. In this view of the matter, a final show cause notice was issued on 3rd of April 1991 for imposition of tax for aforesaid transactions but even in adherence of the second show cause notice the assesses has not made sincere endeavour to satisfy the Assessing Authority about the alleged dubious transactions of sale. Being aggrieved from the second show cause notice dated 3rd of April 1991, a writ petition was preferred by the Assessee before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2023 of 1991 and subsequently the same was transferred to the Tribunal on enactment of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act 1995 (since repealed). The learned Tribunal, after completion of the pleadings of rival parties, allowed the petition by impugned judgment and order. 3. The writ petition is contested by the respondent-assessee and a reply to the same was submitted. At the outset, in the return a preliminary objection was raised about delay and laches by making averment that the petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order after a lapse of three years. Joining the issue with the petitioners, the second respondent has emphatically denied that it has agreed under agreement or it placed any order for supply of "B" category items to L&T as asserted by the petitioners. To substantiate this positive assertion, agreement/order dated 21st of June 1987 was also placed on record. The second respondent, while placing reliance on the materials available on record, has submitted that the company was granted additional licence for setting up of a new cement plant at Chittorgarh and accordingly the new unit, namely Chittorgarh Cement Works was set up. To implement the project, the company placed order to L&T on 18.01.1984, which was accepted and in furtherance and continuance of the said order an agreement was entered into between both the companies on 21st of June 1987. Referring to the terms of the contract, it was averred in the reply that for setting up of a new cement plant the assesses company has agreed to buy machinery and equipments and the L&T agreed to sale and supply of the machinery and equipments. In terms of the agreement, machines and equipments were to be procured and supplied by L&T to the assessee company by import, or by indigenous procurement. In terms of the agreement, machines and equipments were to be procured and supplied by L&T to the assessee company by import, or by indigenous procurement. In the agreement, this part of the contract has been referred as "L&T supply" with its total value as 710.14 lacs. As per reply, apart from L&T supply, the contract also envisage procurement, erection and installation of machinery etc and equipment indigenously by Chittor Cement Works referred to in contract as "Chittor Cements Scope of Supply" in terms of specifications, drawings and supervision provided under the contract of L&T to the assessee-company as a sub-contractor of L&T. On the part of the contract, the L&T were entitled to be paid by Chittor Cement Works service charges at the rate of 20% of the invoice value raised by the L&T of the items within "Chittor Cement Scope of supply, providing drawings and designs and towards supervision charges" and those items were mentioned as "B" category items listed in Annexure "C" to the contract. It is further stated in the reply that delivery of such "B" category items which were to be procured, erected, fabricated and installed by the Chittor Cement Works were purchased by the respondent-assessee on payment of CST under the Central Sales Tax Act against the declaration in Form "C" during the course of inter-State trade or locally after paying RST under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Likewise, excise duty in relation thereto wherever applicable was also to be borne by the company. Thus, according to the respondent-assessee, these items purchased by the petitioner company were tax paid. Emphasising the role of L&T in relation to this part of the contract, it was submitted in the reply that it was only confined to furnishing of designs, drawings and conducting inspection/supervision with respect to aforesaid "B" category items and for that L&T was paid service charges @ 20% of the invoice value raised by L&T. Referring to the debit advices, the assessee-company has submitted that the same were issued on the basis of the value of items, wherein it was specifically made clear that the items have been directly arranged by the company in terms of contract and these debit advices were issued on the basis of invoices issued by L&T which only required payment @20% of the invoice value. Asserting the precise object of debit advices, it was averred in the reply that value of items shown therein was only for accounting purposes. Further elaborating in the reply, the respondent-assessee has submitted that entire cost of purchase of material including sales tax etc. as well as the cost of fabrication, erection, installation etc. were incurred by the assessee-company and further service charges were also paid to L&T by the assessee-company on the basis of invoices. By tendering all these explanations, the respondent-assessee has asserted that there was no question of sale of these items by the assessee-company to L&T and its repurchase by the company from L&T. Asserting with full emphasis that there was no transfer of property in these items from assessee-company to L&T at any point of time and these items continued to remain vested in the company at all the times is sufficient to repudiate the transaction of sale. Adverting to the fact that neither any consideration was paid by L&T, nor it is received by the assessee-company for the said items, it is stated that the said transaction cannot be construed as sale for all purposes. According to the assessee, they were direct tax paid purchases by the assessee-company, and in terms of the contract service charges in relation to drawing, designs and supervision of these items were also paid to L&T by the company. In the return, the respondent-assessee has submitted that regular assessment for the year 1985-86 was completed on 09.01.1989 after due application of mind, examination of the books of account and record, and as such there is no question of any escapement and/or evasion of tax. Refuting the allegation that the assessee-company has made an attempt to conceal these transactions, the assessee has also submitted that even the purported inspection report dated 21st of May 1990 also nowhere states that any concealment of transaction or evasion of tax was by the respondent-assessee. Joining the issue with the petitioners, the respondent-assessee has submitted that initiation of re-assessment proceedings was absolutely void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee has once again reiterated with full emphasis that there was no question of any sale much less sale amounting to Rs. 1,73,06,010 which escaped assessment. Joining the issue with the petitioners, the respondent-assessee has submitted that initiation of re-assessment proceedings was absolutely void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee has once again reiterated with full emphasis that there was no question of any sale much less sale amounting to Rs. 1,73,06,010 which escaped assessment. With all these submissions, the respondents have stoutly defended the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, and submitted that no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Falgun Buch, has urged that the terms and conditions envisaged under the agreement dated 21st of June 1987, whereby the second respondent-assessee has agreed to supply machineries to L&T, clearly and unambiguously constituted transaction of sale and as such the second respondent has rightly invoked the powers conferred on it under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for reopening of the assessment. Mr. Buch submits that while examining the matter, the learned Tribunal has not cared to construe the terms of the agreement properly and has therefore committed a serious error of law and fact which is apparent on record in passing the impugned judgment and order. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that issuance of debit vouchers/advices of different dates and denominations by the respondent-assessee for supply of machineries to L&T was nothing but an affirmative attempt by the assessee to conceal the sale transactions by resorting to ingenious methodology of issuance of debit vouchers/advices and on noticing the same during inspection carried out by the second respondent on 21st of May 1990, the second respondent has rightly pressed into service Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for reopening of the assessment. Submission of Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the learned Tribunal has committed a palpable error in not construing the said transaction as sale and concealment by the assessee which warrants interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has examined the matter threadbare and after construing the true import of the term "sale", has rightly concluded that the said transaction cannot be categorized as sale in the given circumstances. Mr. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has examined the matter threadbare and after construing the true import of the term "sale", has rightly concluded that the said transaction cannot be categorized as sale in the given circumstances. Mr. Pradhuman Singh has submitted that Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act envisages requisite conditions for construing a sale, viz., transfer of property in goods for cash, or for deferred payment, or for any valuable consideration, and includes a transfer of property in goods on hire purchase, or other system of payment by instalment, and in absence of these ingredients the impugned transaction cannot be construed as sale, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that it was not a case of sale and an attempt by the assessee to conceal the so called sale. Mr. Singh has further submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are crystal clear that no payment as such was received by the assessee from L&T in the form of consideration, and therefore, simply on the basis of debit advices it cannot be presumed that it was a sale transaction and the learned Tribunal has thus rightly construed it to be not a sale transaction. Mr. Pradhuman Singh has, thus, submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is a well reasoned verdict based on sound appreciation of the evidence and other materials on record which requires no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other materials available on record. 7. The crucial question, which has cropped up in the instant petition and which requires judicial scrutiny is the true purport of the alleged transaction between the respondent-assessee and L&T so as to bring it within the four corners of sale as defined under Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 8. The learned Tribunal, on examining the matter thoroughly has recorded a categorical finding in the impugned order in Para 27 to 30 of the verdict to repel the contention of the revenue that the same amounts to sale. The relevant finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal in Para 27 to 30 is reproduced as under: 27. There is nothing on record to show that Rs. The relevant finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal in Para 27 to 30 is reproduced as under: 27. There is nothing on record to show that Rs. 2,16,32,510/- was paid to L&T by the petitioner-company or that L&T paid Rs. 1,73,06,010/- to the petitioner-company. Some typical invoices raised by L&T against debit advices issued by the petitioner-company have been brought on record. L&T's invoices are typically for the total value of these items. The petitioner-company's debit advices typically indicate the breakup of the value into the procurement cost and charges @20% of the value for drawing, design and supervision charges payable by the petitioner-company and the payments made by the petitioner-company to L&T were confined to these 20% charges. The invoices do not mention the Rs. 1,73,06,010/- as having been paid by or to L&T as advance payment. 28. The respondents have not been able to show that there was a transfer of property in the goods in question (the purchase of which had been sub-contracted to the petitioner-company) from it to L&T. The question of such transfer could not have arisen as these goods were not in L&T's scope of supply. They were to be procured by the petitioner-company. No sale could therefore be proved as no sale took place between the petitioner-company and L&T of the goods in question. 29. The question as to why did L&T and the petitioner-company resort to this regimarole of invoices and debit advices relatable to the value of Rs. 2,16,32,510/- must remain a moot point. The answer is to be found in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in the fact that the petitioner-company had a dual personality or at least wore two hats. It was the awarded of the contract. It was also the contractor's sub-contractor and L&T charges had to be computed. 30. In any case the system of invoices and debits adopted is not by itself conclusive proof of a sale having taken place. The material procured by the petitioner-company was delivered at site and remained in its control while it was used for fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning. 30. In any case the system of invoices and debits adopted is not by itself conclusive proof of a sale having taken place. The material procured by the petitioner-company was delivered at site and remained in its control while it was used for fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning. This fact taken with the contractual provisions and the fact that it received no payment for it from L&T and paid L&T only the 20% charges for drawing, design and supervision go to show that there was no transfer of property in the goods from the petitioner-company to L&T and no valuable consideration was received so as to constitute a sale. The view finds support from the rulings cited and discussed earlier at paras 17-19 supra. 9. Upon examining the word "sale" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, it means transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash, or for deferred payment, or for any other valuable consideration, and includes,- (i) a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (ii) a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (iii) a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments; (iv) a transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (v) a supply of goods by any unincorporated association of body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (vi) a supply, by way of or as a part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. 10. It is true that in the field of taxation, Legislature must be allowed greater play in the joints as it is called. The fiscal legislation itself, as it is clear, is a compulsory extraction from the public for the welfare of the State. Thus, it is trite that laws relating to economic activities are to be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights, which are freedom of speech etc. The fiscal legislation itself, as it is clear, is a compulsory extraction from the public for the welfare of the State. Thus, it is trite that laws relating to economic activities are to be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights, which are freedom of speech etc. and Court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulations than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved. The Court is quite conscious that such legislation is directed to practical problems dealing with highly sensitive and complex economic mechanism, and therefore, while dealing with such issues, the Court cannot adopt an idealistic and pedantic approach. For examining such issues, pragmatic approach is desirable which can facilitate guidance and inspiration to the legislature in dealing with complex economic issues. By applying these cardinal principles of interpretation of fiscal statutes and requisite parameters, if the transaction between the respondent-assessee and L&T, which is bone of contention in the instant case, is examined on the touchstone of Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, then too it is not possible for us to categorize the said transaction as sale exposing it for reassessment of sales tax resorting to Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 11. Thus, in totality, the learned Tribunal after considering the matter threadbare, has rightly held that in terms of agreement between the respondent-assessee and L&T, the transaction as such cannot be construed as sale within the ambit of Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, and therefore, reopening of the assessment by the petitioner revenue under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is wholly unwarranted. We are in complete agreement with the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on this vital issue. In our considered opinion, while rendering the impugned verdict, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record so as to upset the same by invoking supervisory certiorari jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal, while examining the debit vouchers/advices, has also held that the material procured by respondent-assessee was delivered at site and remained in its control while it was used for fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning, and there is no material available on record to show that amount of Rs. The learned Tribunal, while examining the debit vouchers/advices, has also held that the material procured by respondent-assessee was delivered at site and remained in its control while it was used for fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning, and there is no material available on record to show that amount of Rs. 2,16,32,510 was paid to L&T by the respondent-assessee, or that L&T paid Rs. 1,73,610 to the respondent-assessee. Thus, this finding of the learned Tribunal, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the materials which were available on record, is a pure finding of fact which cannot be made subject matter of judicial review in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. The finding, as such, has neither occasioned grave miscarriage of justice, nor it is a case of dereliction of duty, or flagrant violation of law by the subordinate Tribunal. It is trite that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct the error apparent on the face of record, much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not act as an appellate Court so as to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Tribunal purports to have passed the order to correct errors of law in the decision. 12. In view of above, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant writ petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. *******