Retained husk as decortication payment is not taxable turnover when no sale of husk is disclosed.

Husk retained by millers as payment for hulling and decortication charges did not constitute a sale, because the arrangement showed that only the kernel was delivered to the petitioners and the husk was retained in lieu of service charges. On those facts, the value of the husk could not form part of taxable turnover, and the Tribunal's view to the contrary was unsustainable. The corresponding turnover was therefore directed to be deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of husk retained by the millers in lieu of decortication charges formed part of the taxable turnover as a sale.

Analysis: The arrangement with the millers showed that the husk was given only as payment for hulling and decortication charges, while the kernel alone was delivered to the petitioners. On the facts found, the transaction did not disclose any sale of husk. The Tribunal's view that the husk value was taxable could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The value of the husk was not liable to tax and the corresponding turnover was rightly directed to be deleted.

---