V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.
1. We see no ground to interfere in revision in these cases. The tax revisions are by the same assessee in respect of different assessment years. The question raised is the assessability to sales tax of the turnover in respect of gunny bags in which paddy was sold to the assessee and in respect of the bran generated in the process of milling the paddy delivered by the assessee to the millers. Liability was sought to be linked up with the legal position as to whether the assesses can be regarded as an agent of the Food Corporation of India in the light of the principle of the Supreme Court decision in K. S. G. P. Society Ltd. v. State of Gujarat  29 S.T.C. 105 (S.C.). The Tribunal rightly noticed that it was unnecessary to go into this aspect and that the decision could be rested on the terms of the contract. It referred to the agreement executed between the assessee and the Food Corporation of India and, in particular, to Schedule VI thereof. It pointed out as per the entries in that schedule, in reckoning the margin of profit, the cost of gunnies, sales tax on gunnies and also the milling charges when paddy is to be milled into rice according to the programme approved by the principal, had all been separately charged and taken into account. This was sufficient indication to show that the turnover in respect of value of the gunny bags was also liable to sales tax. We think the Tribunal was correct and there is no ground to interfere with the reasoning or conclusion.
2. As far as the turnover in respect of bran is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that there was no case for the assessee that the bran obtained in the process of milling was delivered back to the principal. Milling was essentially an operation of which the assessee was in-charge. The paddy was delivered by the assessee to the millers and so long as the bran generated in the process of milling was not delivered by the assessee back to the principal, there was enough material to conclude that the turnover in respect of the bran was also assessable in the hands of the assessee.
3. We see no ground to interfere in revision with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. We affirm the same and dismiss these tax revision cases. There will be no order as to costs.