Rajagopalan, J.- Two points have been raised by the learned Government Pleader in this revision case. The respondent, the assessee, was registered, under rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, on 3rd March, 1951. As required by sub-rule (3) of rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, the assessee submitted a return in Form No. A-9 giving particulars of the transactions of the month previous to the month of registration, i.e., February, and claimed the rebate permissible under rule 18(2). That rebate was denied: by the departmental authorities, but was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that rule 18 taken as a whole cannot be said to be retroactive in its operation, and that any deduction permissible under rule 18(2) could be claimed only from the date of registration, and that therefore no rebate should have been allowed under rule 18(2) for the month of February. Sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of rule 18 have to be read together, and, in reading sub-rule (3), Form A-9, which has been specifically referred to in sub-rule (3), has also to be read with it. Form A-9 is in itself an application for rebate, and, under rule (3), that application could be made for the previous month. Since on the date the assessee applied for the deduction permissible under rule 18(2) he was “such a manufacturer” within the meaning of sub-rule (3), i.e., a manufacturer registered under sub-rule (1) of section 18, he was entitled, under the provisions of sub-rule (3), to present the application for the previous month, i.e., the month even prior to the month of registration. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is fully justified by Form No. A-9 read with sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (2) of section 18 and calls for no revision. The other point raised in this case is against the exclusion from the turnover of Rs. 1,10,000. The finding of fact of the Appellate Tribunal was that this was only a deposit, more in the nature of a security, and did not represent the sale price of the 287 drums of oil which the assessee borrowed. Subsequently, the assessee returned the oil in specie to the dealer from whom he had borrowed. Neither when the 287 drums were borrowed, nor when the Rs. Subsequently, the assessee returned the oil in specie to the dealer from whom he had borrowed. Neither when the 287 drums were borrowed, nor when the Rs. 1,10,000 was deposited, was there a sale as defined by the Act. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was correct. The revision case is dismissed. R.M. ----- Revision dismissed.