ORDER : S.C. SHARMA, J. 1. Regard being had to similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 9202/2014 are narrated hereunder. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a registered company under the Companies Act and is registered as a Dealer with Commercial-tax Department under the MP VAT Act, 2002 and TIN number has been assigned i.e. 23040801503. The petitioner is also registered for payment of Service Tax. The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by order dated 28.7.2014 passed by Dy. Commissioner, Commercial-tax, Indore in Case No. 77849 under the MP VAT Act for the period 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. The petitioner firm is a Dealer and selling vehicles and the contention of the petitioner is that on selling vehicles he is sincerely paying Service Tax as well as Tax under the MP VAT Act in respect of the sale price, however, respondents have issued a demand to the petitioner by charging VAT by taking into account the amount demanded by the petitioner as charges towards the logistic services. The petitioner's contention is that the action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions as contained under the MP VAT Act. It is argued that the said levy is beyond the competence under Entry No. 54 of List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has argued that levy of VAT on the services provided by the petitioner, who is Service Provider, is contrary to the settled law and ultra vires in contravention of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and Part XI of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's further contention is that while selling the vehicles the process involves obtaining rent/lease notes and for the purpose of registration of vehicles certain statutory permissions are required for getting the vehicles registered and getting it insured and the petitioner is charging specific consideration for handling towards logistic services. The petitioner has incurred expenses in getting the vehicles registered and insured and towards the Business Auxiliary Service. The contention of the petitioner that on this account the respondents have charged VAT and issued a demand dated 28.7.2014 and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. 3. The petitioner has incurred expenses in getting the vehicles registered and insured and towards the Business Auxiliary Service. The contention of the petitioner that on this account the respondents have charged VAT and issued a demand dated 28.7.2014 and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. 3. On the other hand reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents' stand is that under Section 2(u), which is definition clause in respect of sell, and taking into account Sub-clause 5.6, VAT can be charged on logistic charge also. It includes charging of VAT on logistic charges also. It has been further stated that company has charged Rs. 3,500/- towards logistic charges before delivery and, therefore, the department has rightly issued demand after passing an assessment order. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The definition of sale as contained under the MP VAT Act reads as under :- "2(u)- "Sale With all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment of for 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 works contract; (iii) A delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by instalments; (iv) A supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. (v) A supply, by way of or as 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; (vi) A transfer of the right to use any goods including leasing thereof for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, And such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made, but does not include a mortgage, hypothetication, charge or pledge," 2(v) - Sale Price means the amount or any other consideration payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed *[...........] discount according to ordinary trade practice but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such costs is separately charged." 5. The aforesaid definition of sale does not include "Logistic Charges." It is also not in dispute that petitioner has charged Rs. 3,500/- towards logistic charges from each customer and petitioner is paying service tax on this amount and it is not in dispute that petitioner has paid tax under the VAT Act in respect of the sale price of the vehicles. A similar controversy came up before the Bombay High Court in the case of The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, VAT-III, Mumbai v. Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., and while dealing with the similar issue the Bombay High Court has concluded that VAT cannot be charged on logistic charges. The Bombay High Court in para 16 to 21 has held as under :- "6. The first part of Section 2(25) brings within the purview of the expression "sale price" the consideration paid or payable to a dealer for the sale. The Bombay High Court in para 16 to 21 has held as under :- "6. The first part of Section 2(25) brings within the purview of the expression "sale price" the consideration paid or payable to a dealer for the sale. The second part of the definition which is of an inclusive nature brings within the purview of the definition, any sum charged for anything done by the seller in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery of the goods (other than the cost of insurance for transit or installation when such cost is separately charged). A similar provision in Section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 came up for construction before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in The State of Gujarat v. Jayantilal Bhimji & Sons 1973 (32) STC 527 . In that case, the issue was whether amounts recovered by the assessee from its customers for expenses of postage, trunk-call and bank charges, by separately adding them in the bills were to be considered as 'valuable consideration in respect of the transaction of sale'. The Gujarat High Court held that the amounts were charged for services rendered to the customers in general and such service charges could not be equated to consideration for the transfer of the property in the goods and could not be added to the sale price of the goods. The Court held that what is the consideration in each transaction of sale must depend upon the agreement between the parties to the transaction. The Court was of the view that the charges in question may fall under the head of service charges, but in order to come to the conclusion that they form part of the consideration, there ought to be evidence to prove that the parties had agreed to that effect. The contention of the revenue was therefore negatived. 17. In State of Madras v. Srinivasa Timber Depot and others 1974 (33) STC 423 , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court was called upon to consider whether an amount recovered by the assessee, who was a dealer in timber as 'lot cooly charges', would form part of the sale price under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. These charges were collected for the service rendered for taking out logs of timber from the place of storage in order to place them before the customer for selection and approval. On these facts, the Division Bench held that these charges were not paid exclusively for the services rendered in respect of the goods sold, but for services rendered by the workmen for the purposes of enabling the purchaser to select the goods. Hence, the charges were said to have been recovered de hors the sale. In that context, while interpreting the expression "any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods", the Division Bench approved the following statement of principle formulated in an earlier judgment in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, 1969 (23) STC 158 of the Madras High Court. : "In the explanation referred to, if understood in the context, as it should be, 'any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods' can only relate to something done by the dealer in respect of the goods which involves transfer of property in the good sand for consideration. The further condition is that something should have been done in respect of the goods at the time of, or before the delivery of, the goods. So, what is chargeable to tax is not any sum charged at the time of, or before the delivery of, the goods, but any sum charged for transfer of property in the goods, involved in anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time specified by the explanation. The explanation read in the abstract is, of course, of wide scope and may possibly take in any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods whether or not it involved also transfer of property in the goods. But, as we said, the fact that it is an explanation to the definition of 'turnover' and the 'turnover' is but the aggregate amount of the consideration of sales shows that it has to be read in the context and not de hors it." In State of Tamil Nadu v. Srinivasa Timber Depot, 1991 (80) STC 393 , the Supreme Court held that the statement of principle was in accordance with law and dismissed an appeal by the State. 18. 18. In so far as this Court is concerned, a reference may be made to the judgment of a Division Bench in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. 1985 (59) STC 147 The assessee in that case had collected service pool charges at the rate of Rs. 10 per vehicle from its distributor which were not included in the turnover shown by the assessee. The purpose of the recovery of service pool charges was to maintain an expert fleet of mechanics who would be available to consumers after they had obtained cars from the distributors. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice M. H. Kania and Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (as Their Lordships then were ) held that the service pool charges collected by the assessee from its distributors were not a part of the consideration for the vehicle sold to the distributor at all. As regards the inclusive or extended definition of the expression "sale price", the Division Bench held that the service charges in question did not fall within the extended meaning for the following reason: "As far as the inclusive or the extensive portion of the definition of "sale price" is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the benefit of the service promotion scheme was available to the customers and to the distributors only after the cars had been delivered to the ultimate consumer or customers and hence the consideration for the benefit received under such scheme could not be in any way said to be related to or anything done in respect of the cards sold at or before the time of delivery." 19. In State of Karnataka and another v. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (117) STC 413 , the assessee who was a manufacturer of aerated waters collected freight charges under an agreement which provided that the goods sold were on an ex-factory basis. The assessee provided at the option of the purchaser for the transportation of the products and the freight charges were recovered separately under debit notes. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the assessee performed a dual role, one as the seller of the goods and the other as a carrier of the goods having collected freight charges separately from the buyer. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the assessee performed a dual role, one as the seller of the goods and the other as a carrier of the goods having collected freight charges separately from the buyer. The freight charges, the Court held, were recovered by the assessee in his capacity as carrier of the goods and did not form part of the sales turnover of the assessee. The real test, the Court held, was whether the property in the goods had passed to the buyer at the factory of the assessee or at the place of the buyer. The contract indicated that the property in the goods passed to the buyer at the factory of the assessee and subsequent transportation was carried out by the assessee as the transporter of the goods. This view of the Karnataka High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another v. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (117) STC 419. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court in contrasting facts is the decision in India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 423 . In India Meters, the assessee manufactured electric meters which were supplied to Electricity Boards. The contract between the assessee and its purchaser specifically stipulated that the sale was not completed at the factory gate and the transfer of property in the goods would take place at the establishment of the buyer. In these facts, since the seller was under an obligation to transport the goods to the place of the buyer and transfer of property in the goods took place only at the establishment of the buyer, the Supreme Court held, that the freight charges recovered by the seller from the buyer would form part of the sales turnover. 20. In the present case, there is absolutely no reason to fault the finding of the Tribunal that the goods which form the subject matter of the contract between the Respondent and its buyer are in a specific and deliverable state. The transfer of property in the goods in pursuance of the sale contract takes place against the payment of the price of the goods. Delivery of the goods is effected by the seller to the buyer. The obligation under the law to obtain registration of the motor vehicle is cast upon the buyer. The transfer of property in the goods in pursuance of the sale contract takes place against the payment of the price of the goods. Delivery of the goods is effected by the seller to the buyer. The obligation under the law to obtain registration of the motor vehicle is cast upon the buyer. The service of facilitating the registration of the vehicle which is rendered by the seller-assessee is to the buyer and in rendering that service, the seller acts as an agent of the buyer. The handling charges which are recovered by the Respondent cannot therefore be regarded as forming part of the consideration paid or payable to the Respondent for the sale. Those charges cannot fall within the extended meaning of the expression "sale price", since they do not constitute a sum charged for anything done by the seller in respect of the goods at the time or before the delivery thereof. 21. For these reasons, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. Both the questions of law are answered in the affirmative. The Sales Tax Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 6. The Bombay High Court has held that VAT/the service charges cannot be charged towards the handling charges. The Bombay High Court after taking into account the judgments of Supreme Court and other High Courts has decided the matter in favour of the dealer. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment of Bombay High Court and is of the opinion that logistic charges cannot be included in the sale price for charging VAT under the MP VAT Act, 2002. Resultantly, the impugned demand dated 28.7.2014 passed in Case No. 77849 is hereby quashed. In other connected matter similar demand has been raised, therefore, in other connected case also the demand is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of ninety days from today. It is made clear that if the amount is not refunded within ninety days, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date it is actually paid to the petitioner from the date of realization. 7. The amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of ninety days from today. It is made clear that if the amount is not refunded within ninety days, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date it is actually paid to the petitioner from the date of realization. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed along with other connected petition which is arising out of the same dispute.