- (1.) THE order of the C.T.O. Jodhpur has been attacked on the ground that the C.T.O. has not carefully gone into the question of fact involved in this case. He has simply on the basis of his "experience of such contract in other case" held that this was a case for "supply of ballast on sale basis."
(2.) IT is argued that this is not a correct approach to the case and that it was the duty of the C.T.O. to have marshalled the evidence relating to the transaction involved in this case and come to proper conclusions on the basis of the same.
(3.) THIS argument must prevail. The decision of each case depends on its merits. It was, therefore, incumbent on the C.T.O. to have based his finding on the material relating to this case and in drawing his conclusions on the basis of his "experience of such contract in other case, he has clearly fallen into an error. The applicant claims that it was a work contract and not a sale contract but as the order reads, no valid reasons have been given to justify the conclusion that it was a sale contract. Without, therefore, going into the merits of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that this order cannot be sustained. I therefore, accept this revision, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the C.T.O. Jodhpur for re -writing the order after giving an opportunity to both the sides of being heard, in the light of the observations made above.;