ORDER H. S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT. - The first ground relates to a sum of Rs. 4,752 representing the sale price of motor lorries the departmental officers have included in the applicant company's turnover. Its learned counsel relies on the Board's decision in Mohanlal Nathani v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 305) in claiming exemption in respect of this amount. The general principal laid down in that case was further examined by a Division Bench in another case, Onkarmal Jodhraj Agarwal v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 313), and the position now is that exemption cannot be claimed unless the second-hand or used goods sold are help to have no relation whatever with any of the businesses for which the assessee was registered or was liable to be registered as a dealer under the Act. In Mohanlal Nathani's case clearly the motor cars sold had no connection with any of his businesses. In Onkarmal Agarwal's case the motor trucks did have some connection with one of the businesses in which he was engaged; but that was not a business for which he was liable to be registered. In the case before us, admittedly the vehicles were used for the transport of goods manufactured at the assessee's mills. They are therefore, part of the equipment required for the business for which it has been registered and the price for which they were sold has been rightly included in the turnover. 2. Similar considerations apply to the sale price of certain building material and tools, the inclusion of which in the turnover is in order. 3. The fourth item, the inclusion of which in the turnover has been objected to, is a sum of Rs. 150 representing the sale price of forms of application which the assessee sold to candidates for employment under it. It is not denied that application forms are "goods" within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. It is also clear that these goods were sold in connection with the business in which the assessee is engaged. No convincing reason has been given why the inclusion of the item in the turnover was against the law. The claim for exemption cannot be sustained. 4. Two more ground have not been pressed seriously. The first is regarding the sale price of goods sold at the assessee's Amravati branch shop. No convincing reason has been given why the inclusion of the item in the turnover was against the law. The claim for exemption cannot be sustained. 4. Two more ground have not been pressed seriously. The first is regarding the sale price of goods sold at the assessee's Amravati branch shop. That branch shop is part of the assessee's concern and the sale price of goods sold in it cannot be excluded from the turnover. To understand the second, the explanation offered is this. In view of the Textile Control Orders, the assessee could not sell its goods to its normal customers. It was required to sell them to the nominees of the Governments of different provinces. To compensate the normal customers for their loss of business, the assessee used to charge an extra three per cent. to the new vendees - which extra amount was later passed on to the normal customers. The claim is that this extra three per cent. should not have been included in the turnover. The analogy here is that of amounts charged to the customer in the name of sales tax, dharmada, etc. The Board has already help that such amounts, no matter how called and no matter how subsequently disposed of, from part of the sale price, as defined in Section 2(h) and cannot escape inclusion in the turnover. The claim made in this behalf cannot be allowed. 5. Finally remain two item - one of Rs. 95 and the other of Rs. 1,268-14-6, about which the information on the record is meagre. The Assessing Officer's order in respect of these items is restricted to the following : "....................... ................. ....................... ................. 4. Dyeing ......... Rs. 95 ........................ ................. 6. Sundry sales from mechanical dept. ... Rs. 1,268-14-6 ........................ ................." The Commissioner's order contains some further details and refers to the objections taken by the assessee in its grounds of appeal. But even here, it is not clear whether in the case of sales from the dyeing department the assessee merely dyed the cloth and/or yarn brought to it by its customers or whether it sold to them cloth and/or yarn from its own stock after dyeing it is the manner desired by the customers. But even here, it is not clear whether in the case of sales from the dyeing department the assessee merely dyed the cloth and/or yarn brought to it by its customers or whether it sold to them cloth and/or yarn from its own stock after dyeing it is the manner desired by the customers. Similarly, in regard to sales from the mechanical department, it is not clear what exactly are the goods the sale price of which has been included in the turnover. In regard to both these items, further enquiry is necessary in the making of which the exact nature of the claim made by the assessee should be fully considered. 6. In the result, the application fails in respect of all items but two dealt with in the last preceding paragraph. In regard to these items, the case is remanded to the learned Commissioner for further enquiry and fresh decision. Ordered accordingly.