Judgment :- SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. Only two points arise for consideration in this case. The first point is, whether the assessee is liable to include in his turnover the sum of Rs. 4, 44, 787-8-0. The assessee is a dealer in groundnuts among other things. He also owns a decorticating mill. Certain dealers entrusted to him groundnut for decortication and obtained advances on the goods deposited. On these advances the dealers has to pay interest. After decortication the goods were sold by the assessee on behalf of the dealers; and from and out of the amount realised he appropriated to himself the advances he made together with interest thereon, as well as the charges payable for decorticating the groundnuts of the dealers and he paid the balance to the dealers. The transaction does not in any way involve the purchase of the groundnuts by the assessee and therefore it cannot be included in his turnover. Dealings in groundnuts attracted tax only at the point of purchase and not at the point of sale. The Tribunal therefore took the view that this amount need not be included in the turnover of the assessee. On the statement of facts, no authority is required for this position, it is obvious that the transaction is not a purchase by the assessee and therefore the amount does not constitute his taxable turnover. It was rightly excluded from the turnover by the Tribunal. The second point raised is under rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. Under rule 18, sub-clause (2), every registered manufacturer of groundnut oil is entitled to deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of an amount equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by him into oil and cake provided he included the amount for which the oil is sold in his turnover. In order to obtain this deduction sub-rule (3) of rule 18 requires that the manufacturer should submit, so as to reach the registering authority not later than the 25th day of every month, a statement in Form A9 in respect of the transactions relating to the previous month.Before 10th February, 1949, there was no express power vested in any authority to condone the delay if the return was not submitted within the time fixed by sub-rule (3). But on 10th February, 1949, sub-rule (3A) was introduced which empowered the Commercial Tax Officer to condone the delay in filing the return as required by sub-rule (3). It was contended that in respect of the returns which should have been submitted before 10th February, 1949, there was no power or authority to condone the delay in making the returns and therefore the deduction should not have been granted. It was also contended that it was a condition precedent for claiming the deduction that the return should be submitted before the 25th of every month and that if the assessee did not do so he lost the right. In view of the new amendment introduced, which relates to procedure, we think that it is retrospective in its operation; and so long as the assessment was not completed, the concerned authority had ample power or discretion to condone the delay in submitting the return or the omission to submit the return at all. No question of vested right accruing arises, and therefore the view taken by the Tribunal that the authority concerned could condone the delay is, in our opinion, correct. The petition is dismissed with costs, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.