Judgment :- 1. Writ Appeal 127 of 1967 arises out of O.P.1298 of 1966, while Writ Appeals 204 and 208 of 1967 arise out of O.P. 3267 of 1966. The two Original Petitions were filed by Messrs. D. C. Johar & Sons (P) Ltd., Ernakulam, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, to quash certain orders assessing them to sales tax. Exts. P2, P3 and P4 are the orders of assessment for the years 1962-63,1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee filed appeals against Exts. P2 to P4, and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is Ext. P5 in O. P. 3267 of 1966. The exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of the turnover of the sale of beer purchased from McDowell & Co., Shertallai, and the freight paid for purchasing the goods, was disallowed by the assessing authorities. In O. P. 1298 of 1966 the assessee prayed for the quashing of the order of assessment for the year 1964-65 which was also sought to be quashed in O. P. 3267 of 1966. In O. P. 1298 of 1966 the claim of the assessee was similar to that in O. P. 3267 of 1966.0. P. 1298 of 1956 was disposed of on 3 31967, while O. P. 3267 of 1966 was disposed of on 18 71967. The result of the orders in the Original Petitions is to quash Exts. P2 to P4 and P5 in so far as the turnover in respect of the sale of beer purchased from McDowell and Co. Ltd., Shertallai. The claim for exemption made by the assessee in respect of the freight and surcharge was disallowed in both the Original Petitions. Writ Appeals 127 and 204 of 1967 are filed by the State against the orders in both the Original Petitions, while Writ Appeal 208 or 1967 is filed by the assessee against the order in O. P. 3267 of 1966. 2. In the appeals filed by the State the question relates to the claim of the assessee for exemption of the turnover on account of the sales of beer purchased from McDowell & Co. Ltd., Shertallai. In view of our decision on an identical question in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 1967, we have to uphold the claim for exemption and agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are therefore devoid of merit. 3. Ltd., Shertallai. In view of our decision on an identical question in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 1967, we have to uphold the claim for exemption and agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are therefore devoid of merit. 3. In Writ Appeal 208 of 1967 the only point to be decided is whether the claim for deduction in respect of the freight paid by the appellant to his sellers is sustainable. A similar claim by the same assesses for the year 1964-65 was disallowed in O. P. 1298 of 1966 by Govindan Nair, J. observing thus: "The petitioner has raised a further point. This relates to the exemption from the turnover of the freight said to have been paid by the petitioner in regard to commodities purchased by him and resold. The amount paid towards freight by the petitioner to his seller cannot be an item of deduction in relation to the price obtained by him in the sales effected by him. This is so, even though he has shown the freight to his seller separately in the bills that he has issued in relation to his sales." 4. 'Taxable turnover' according to S.2 sub-section [xxv] of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 means: "the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed, but shall not include the turnover of purchase or sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India or in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India;" Rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, which prescribes for the determination of taxable turnover, allows the amounts specified in clauses [a] to [1] of the rule to be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer. It will be sufficient for us to extract R.9, sub-rule (f) on which alone the learned counsel for the appellant relied. The said rule reads: "Rule 9. Determination of taxable turnover. It will be sufficient for us to extract R.9, sub-rule (f) on which alone the learned counsel for the appellant relied. The said rule reads: "Rule 9. Determination of taxable turnover. In determining the taxable turnover, the amounts specified in the following clauses, shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer: xxx (f) all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of goods sold; (i) freight; (ii) charges for packing and delivery;" 5. The claim on behalf of the appellant was that the freight incurred by his seller and which he had to pay when he purchased the goods was shown separately in the bills issued to his purchasers and has to be deducted because it is only a liability incurred by him which he is passing on to his purchasers. The argument is no doubt attractive but the question is whether the deduction claimed is permissible under R.9 (f) (i) of the 1963 rules. In our view the freight to be deducted under the rule should have been paid by the dealer in effecting delivery of goods to his customers The expression'freight' in sub-rule (f) of R.9 cannot mean the freight paid by the dealer to his seller. It can only include the freight incurred by him while selling goods to his customers. In State of Madras V.Viswanatha Pillai (1957) 8 S.T.C. 601 the Madras High Court in overruling a similar contention based on R.5 [1] [g] of the Madras General Sales Tax [Turnover and Assessment] Rules, 1939, which is almost similar to R.9 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, observed: "Under the rule the plaintiff shall be levied only on the net turnover, and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff was a dealer in piece-goods, under rule (4), his turnover for the purpose of the rules shall be the amount for which the goods are sold by the dealer. The amount for which the goods are sold by the plaintiff would undoubtedly include the freight, because the freight which he paid goes into the sale price which he charges for the goods when he sells them to his customers at Tirunelveli. The amount for which the goods are sold by the plaintiff would undoubtedly include the freight, because the freight which he paid goes into the sale price which he charges for the goods when he sells them to his customers at Tirunelveli. But what is important to remember is that in respect of the sales which he effects at Tirunelveli he does not pay any freight, and there being no question of freight in connection with sales effected by him, it is clear that he is not entitled to claim the exemption in regard to the freight which he paid for the purpose of his purchase thought it is taken into account for fixing the cost price. In a case like this, we are concerned only with what happens at the sale point, where there was no freight at all." 6. The decision of the Orissa High Court in Nabhi Brothers v Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1960) 11 S. T. C. 605 cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not support him. The head note of the case reads thus: "Where a dealer in motor cars and spare parts had separately charged in his bills the railway frieght and such other charges incurred in effecting delivery of the goods to his customers, he was entitled to deduct them from the 'sale price' of the goods under S.2 (h) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 1947." The decision turned on the interpretation of S.2 (h) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and that on a concession made by the standing counsel. The said decision cannot apply to the facts of the case before us. We therefore overrule the contention of the learned counsel for deduction under R.9 sub rule (f) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. In the result, we dismiss all the appeals, but we make no order as to costs.