M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) These are revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act preferred, by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, a State Government Corporation. Sales Tax Revision Nos. 1211 and 1212 of 1992 are directed against a consolidated order dated April 28, 1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, in the revisionist's second appeals for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. Sales Tax Revision Nos. 1257 and 1258 of 1992 are directed against a common order dated May 30, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, in respect of the assessee's second appeals for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 in respect of the revisionist's unit at Bareilly, and Trade Tax Revision No. 1171 of 1994 is directed against an order dated June 17, 1994, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, in respect of the assessee's second appeal for the assessment year 1987-88. All these revisions raised a common controversy. They were therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. As stated above, the revisionist is a State Government Corporation established for the purpose of providing housing facilities to the people. It acquires land for conversion into building sites. It also constructs houses and for the construction of the houses, the revisionist procures the services of contractors and, for that purpose, it supplies certain building materials like cement, steel, lime, etc. , to such contractors. The question that arises in these revisions is whether the supply of such materials to the building contractors amounts to a sale by the revisionist-Corporation to the contractors and thus liable to sales tax. The assessing officer treated the said supply as sale and levied tax accordingly. His view was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and has been finally upheld by the Tribunal in view of various orders under challenge. Whether a certain transaction amounts to sale is a question that depends on the terms of contract between the contractor and the contractee. The Tribunal has reproduced the relevant terms of the contract in its judgment and it reads like this : " If the specification or estimate of the work provides for the use of any special description of materials to be supplied from the Engineer-in-charge's store, or if it is required that the contractor shall use certain stores to be provided by the Engineer-in-charge (such materials and stores and the price to be charged therefor as hereinafter mentioned being so far as practicable for convenience of the contractor but not so as in any way to control the meaning or effect of this contract, specified in the Schedule of the memorandum hereto annexed) the contractor shall be supplied with such materials and stores as are required from time to time to be used by him for the purposes of the contract only and value of the full quantity of materials or stores so supplied at the rates specified in the, said Schedule or memorandum may be set-off or deducted from any sums then due, or thereafter to become due, to the contractor under the contract or otherwise, or against, or from the security deposit or the proceeds of sale thereof if the same is held in Government securities, the same or a sufficient portion thereof being in this case sale for the purpose. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to ascertain from time to time from the Engineer-in-charge about the position or availability of the materials as aforementioned and any delay on the part of the Engineer-in-charge to arrange supplies of the same shall not entitle the contractor to any compensation but in the event of all such delays the contractor shall be granted reasonable extension of time. All materials supplied to the contractor are the property of the contractor, but shall not on any account be removed from the site of the work, except with the written permission of the Engineer-in-charge or under his orders and shall at all times be open to inspection by the Engineer-in-charge. Any such materials unused and in perfectly good condition at the time of the completion or determination of the contract may, by special arrangement, be taken over by U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad at the prevailing market rates, if required for use on other works in progress provided that the price allowed shall not exceed the amount charged to the contractor. The learned counsel for the assessee-revisionist contended that the arrangement for the supply of certain materials to the contractor was made simply to ensure the use of standard materials in the construction of the Parishad's buildings and the maintenance of the quality of work and that there was no intention of sale. He placed reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1996] 102 STC 466 (All.) [app. ]; 1992 UPTC 170 in which this Court held that the supply of building materials by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission to the contractors did not amount to sale. The relevant term of contract is reproduced in para 9 of the judgment at page 175 and it shows that there was no agreement transferring the property of the material supplied to the contractor who was to be liable for criminal breach of trust in case of their misuse clearly indicating thereby that the contractee, i. e. , the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, continued to remain the owner of the materials and the contractor on being supplied those materials merely held them on trust to be used for the commission's work. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of this Court in Hindustan Housing Factory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1989] 75 STC 233; 1989 UPTC 468. In that case, the contractee, namely, the U. P. State Electricity Board, was to supply the requisite material like cement and steel. The entire contract is reproduced in the judgment. There was no clause stating that the goods supplied were to become the property of the contractor or that the contractor will be liable for loss or damage to the goods. This Court took the view that the property in respect of the materials had all along been invested with the U. P. State Electricity Board and that there was no sale. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sarvodaya Printing Press v. State of Maharashtra [1994] 93 STC 387 in which it was held that a contract to supply printed receipt books to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was not a sale but a works contract. The controversy in this case was thus different and is not of any help in resolving the present controversy. The honourable Supreme Court had dealt with a similar controversy in N. M. Goel and Company v. Sales Tax Officer [1989] 72 STC 368; 1990 UPTC 865. In that case, the Public Works Department of the Madhya Pradesh Government supplied certain building materials to the contractor who was engaged for the construction of foodgrains godown and ancillary buildings. The question was whether the supply amounted to a sale within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In that case, there was a stipulation that the materials so supplied to the contractor shall remain the absolute property of the Government yet the Supreme Court held that the arrangement amounted to a sale. The honourable Supreme Court observed that though in a transaction of this type, there is no inherent sale, a sale inheres from the transaction and that by the use or consumption of material in the work of construction, there was passing of the property of the goods to the assessee from the Public Works Department. A similar controversy relating to another Corporation of the State of U. P. , namely the U. P. State Electricity Board, came before me in Executive Engineer, Electricity Civil Construction Division, U. P. State Electricity Board v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1994 UPTC 438. In that case, the terms of the agreement relating to the supply of goods to the contractor was exactly the same as in the present case and as reproduced above. On a consideration of the various authorities and the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in N. M. Goel's case [1989] 72 STC 368; 1990 UPTC 865, it was held by me that the transaction resulted in a sale of goods by the contractee to the contractor. As is evident from the terms of the contract, it specifically states that on the materials being supplied, they will become the property of the contractor and that what is to be charged from the contractor is the price of the goods so supplied. It does not say that the value of the goods so supplied would be adjusted from the dues of the contractor. As observed by the honourable Supreme Court a sale, in the ordinary sense of the term, may not be intended by the parties, but the sale inheres in the transaction. I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the supply of the building materials by the revisionist to the contractor amounted to a sale liable to be taxed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. These revisions therefore, have no force and are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed. .;