BERI, J.—This is a reference under sec. 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act") made by Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch C at the instance of the assessee. 2. Facts relevant for answering the question referred to us are these— M/s Udaipur Distillery Company (hereinafter called "the assessee") was a firm constituted by two partners, viz., (1) Sohan Lal Golcha, acting as Karta of the Hindu undivided family, and (2) F.B. Elavia. The firm owned and operated a distillery at Udaipur During the assessment year 1945-46, relevant to the previous year of the firm ending on 16 10-1944, it sold some of its products in areas then included in British India In the relevant period in the erstwhile State of Mewar, of which Udaipur was the capital, there was no income tax. The Income tax Officer, Ajmer, issued a notice to the firm under sec. 34 of the Act on 27-1-1953. The assessee received it on 3 11-1953. The Commissioner, Income tax exercising his power under sec. 5(7-A) of the Act transferred the case of the assessee to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle III, Delhi, by his order dated 5-21953. The assessee however, addressed a letter dated 2-3-1953 to the Income tax Officer, Ajmer, challenging his jurisdiction and requested him to refer the question to the Income tax Commissioner The objection was over-ruled by the Commissioner by his order dated 18-5-1953 on the ground that the notification No 44 had conferred jurisdiction on the Income tax Officer, Ajmer The assessee thereafter filed its return, in answer to the notice under sec. 34, on 20-6-1953. By its letter dated 25-7-1953 the assesssee also challenged the jurisdiction of the Income tax Officer, Delhi, who rejected it on the ground that the assessee was then debarred from raising such an objection. The return submitted by the assessee showed a profit of Rs. 61,275 in sec. (E) of the return thereby raising the contention that it was not liable to pay any income tax. The assessee submitted an analysis of its transactions under five heads. The Income tax Officer, Delhi, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that in all those transactions it was liable to tax as the sale proceeds in each one of them were received by the assessee in British India and he according assessed the firm. The assessee submitted an analysis of its transactions under five heads. The Income tax Officer, Delhi, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that in all those transactions it was liable to tax as the sale proceeds in each one of them were received by the assessee in British India and he according assessed the firm. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the aforesaid two points of jurisdiction and non-liability of tax for a nonresident firm, but without success. A further appeal was preferred before the Tribunal where the same points were re-agitated. The Tribunal held that the Income tax Commissioner alone was competent to decide the question of jurisdiction under sec. 64(3) of the Act and his decision dated 18-5-1953 had become final and binding on the assessee and it could not be reopened in appeal before the Tribunal because it fell outside the scope of secs 30 or 33 of the Act. The second contention that the profit was not received in the British India was also negatived by the Tribunal The assessee requested the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court and the Tribunal by its order dated 30-1-1967 has referred two questions to us. 3. The first question is— "(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the point regarding the jurisdiction raised by the assessee firm was an objection regarding the place of assessment and that no appeal could lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on the point ? " The letters which the assessee wrote to the Income-tax Officers, Ajmer and Delhi have not been included in the paper book The precise order passed by the Commissioner Income tax has not been included either, but the purport of it has been incorporated in the order of the Tribunal 4. Sec. 64 runs as follows : "64. Place of Assessment.— [1] Where an assessee carries on a business, profession or vocation at any place, he shall be assessed by the Income tax Officer of the area in which that place is situate or, where the business, profession or vocation is carried on in more places than one, by the Income-tax Officer of the area in which the principal place of his business, profession or vocation is situate. [2] In all other cases, an assessee shall be assessed by the Income tax Officer of the area in which he resides. [3] Where any question arises under this section as to the place of assessment, such question shall be determined by the Commissioner, or, where the question is between places in more States than one by the Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Central Board of Revenue . Provided that, before any such question is determined, the assessee shall have had an opportunity of representing his views : Provided further that the place of assessment shall not be called in question by an assessee if he has made a return in response to the notice under sub-sec. [1] of sec. 22, and has stated therein the principal place wherein he carries on his business, profession or vocation, or if he has not made such a return shall not be called in question after the expiry of the period allowed by the notice under sub-sec. [2] of sec. 22 or under sec 34 for the making of a return : Provided further that if the place of assessment is called in question by an asseseee the Income tax Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub-section before assessment is made. [4] Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, every Income-tax Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Income-tax Officer in respect of any income, profits or gains accruing, or arising or received within the area for which he is appointed. [5] The provisions of sub-sec. [1] and sub-sec. [2] shall not apply and shall be deemed never at any time to have applied to any assessce— [a] on whom an assessment or re-assessment for the purposes of this Act has been, is being or is to be made in the course of any case in respect of which a Commissioner of Income-tax appointed without reference to area under sub-sec. [2] of sec. 5 is exercising the functions of a Commissioner of Income-tax, or [b] Whereby any direction given or any distribution or allocation of work made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under sub-sec. [5] of sec. 5 or in consequence of any transfer made under sub sec. [7- A] of sec. [2] of sec. 5 is exercising the functions of a Commissioner of Income-tax, or [b] Whereby any direction given or any distribution or allocation of work made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under sub-sec. [5] of sec. 5 or in consequence of any transfer made under sub sec. [7- A] of sec. 5, a particular Income tax Officer has been charged with the function of assessing that assessee, or [c] who or whose income is included in a class of persons or a class of incomes specified in any notification issued under sub-sec. [6] of sec. 5. but the assessment of such person, whether the proceedings for such assessment began before or after the 1st day of April 1939 shall be made by the Income tax Officer for the time being charged with the function of making such assessment by the Central Board of Revenue or by the Commissioner of Income-tax to whom he is subordinate, as the case may be." As the assessee carried on business at the time of issuing the notice under sec 34 at Udaipur the Income tax Officer, Udaipur was the proper officer who should have issued notice under sec. 34. Notice in this case was, however, issued by the Income-tax officer, Ajmer, under the mis-apprehension that he had jurisdiction to do so. Under Notification No 44 dated 1-7-52 the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, was empowered to deal with pending assessments for the period before the merger of Indian States. The assessment proceedings in the present case were, however, not pending when notification No. 44 dated 1-7-52 was issued. As such the Income tax Officer, Ajmer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under sec. 34 to the assessee. 5. The assessee raised an objection that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had no jurisdiction to issue notice to him. After this objection had been raised his case was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Delhi by the Commissioner, Income-tax under sec. 5[7-A]. This order, however, could not confer jurisdiction on the officer to whom the case had been transferred from the file of the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, as the latter officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the assessee. The question as to the place of assessment was referred to the Commissioner of Income-tax under sec. 64[3] for decision. 5[7-A]. This order, however, could not confer jurisdiction on the officer to whom the case had been transferred from the file of the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, as the latter officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the assessee. The question as to the place of assessment was referred to the Commissioner of Income-tax under sec. 64[3] for decision. He held that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction to issue notice by virtue of notification No. 44 dated 1-7-52 As we have pointed out above, that notification applied only to pending cases and did not empower the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer to issue a fresh notice under sec. 34 in a case which was not pending on the date of the notification. 6. The point regarding jurisdiction raised by the assessee was in essence an objection regarding the place of assessment. An assessee objecting to the place of assessment has, however, not been given any right of appeal against the decision on that objection either under sec. 30 or under sec. 33. Only a right to have the question decided by the Commissioner has been given. That right was availed of and the Commissioner decided that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer was competent to issue notice under sec. 34 to the assessee. That decision even though erroneous became final as the Income-tax Act 1922 does not provide for any appeal against it. 7. It will be enough in this context to quote the observation of their Lordships of the Federal Court in Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan[l] : "Clause[3] of sec. 64 provides that any question as to the place of assessment shall be determined by the Commissioner or by the Central Board of Revenue. Proviso 3 to the clause enacts that if the place of assessment is called in question by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub section before assessment is made. These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administrative convenience than of jurisdiction and that in any event it is not one for adjudication by the Court. Proviso 2 to cl.[3] further enacts that the place of assessment shall not be called in question by an assessee if he has made a return in response to the notice under sub-sec. Proviso 2 to cl.[3] further enacts that the place of assessment shall not be called in question by an assessee if he has made a return in response to the notice under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 22, or if he has not made such a return, it shall not be called in question after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice for the making of a return. This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made. The fact that the Tribunal nevertheless thought fit to allow the question to be raised and even included it in the reference to the High Court cannot alter the legal position." ( Note—The italic is by us ). 8. The above decision was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rai Bahadur Seth Toomal vs. Commissioner of Income.tax(2) in which they observed as follows : "The question then arises whether the objection as to the place of assessment, i.e., by the Income-tax Officer of Calcutta, could be challenged in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then before the Appellate Tribunal In our opinion it could not be. The scheme of the Act shows that no appeal in regard to the objection to the place of assesement is contemplated under the Act. Under proviso (iii) of sec 64 3) of the Act a question as to the place of assessment when it arises, is determined by the Commissioner, Any such order cannot be made a ground of appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under sec. 30 of the Act which provides for appeals against orders of assessment and other orders enumerated in sec. 30 but no appeal is there provided against orders made under sec. 64(3). Similarly appeals to the Appellate Tribunal which lie under sec. 33 of the Act also do not provide for any appeal on the question of the place of assessment. In Wallace Brothers case (1) at page 79 Spens, C.J., after referring to sec. 64(3) and the proviso thereto said : These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administra-tive convenience than of jurisdiction and that in any event it is not one for adjudication by the court............ In Wallace Brothers case (1) at page 79 Spens, C.J., after referring to sec. 64(3) and the proviso thereto said : These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administra-tive convenience than of jurisdiction and that in any event it is not one for adjudication by the court............ ...........This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being raised on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made As we have already pointed out the objection was not raised in the present case even before the Appellate Income-tax Officer, but only before the Appellate Tribunal. There is nothing in the Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India(3) which in any way detracts from the efficacy of the decision of the Federal Court in Wallace Brothers case(l). We have already said that Bidi Supply case (3) deals with the vires of sec. 5(7-A). In this view of the matter the question as to the place of assessment does not arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, no question of law could be referred nor could the High Court make such order under sec 66(2)." 9. Our answer to the question (1), therefore, is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the point regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers, Ajmer and Delhi raised by the assessee firm was in essence an objection regarding the place of assessment and no appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on this point. The second question is : [2] "Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the various sales referred to above were made in and the price of sales referred to above were received in taxable territory ?" 10. According to the statement of case paragraph[4] there are 5 items which go to make the total of Rs. 3,11,297/ . This is incorrect. From the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 16-4-60 paragraph No. 2 as well as from the order of the learned tribunal dated 20-3-62 paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 there are six items for the assessment year 1945-46 which require consideration. They are [a] Rs. 35,615/-, [b] Rs. 9,000/-, [c] Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000, [d] Rs. 14,919/-, [e] Rs. They are [a] Rs. 35,615/-, [b] Rs. 9,000/-, [c] Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000, [d] Rs. 14,919/-, [e] Rs. 2,55,813/- and [1] Rs. 23450/-. Their total comes to Rs. 3,41,297/-. We are dealing with these items separately. [a] Rs. 35,615—The Tribunal has found it as a fact that this amount of money was deposited in cash by the buyers of the assessees products in the assessees accounts with a Bank in British India. [b] A sum of Rs. 9,000/- was deposited by buyers in cash in the assessees bank accounts with the National Bank at Bombay. [c] The sum of Rs. 3,000/- is composed of two items. A sum of Rs. 2.000/- was paid in cash to Shri B S Elavia father of the partner F. B Elavia at Bombay. Rs. 1,000/- were received in cash by the other partner Sohanlal Coloha of the assessee firm at Bombay. Item [a], [b] and [c] were received in cash on behalf of the assessee in Bombay, British India, towards the price of the goods supplied by the assessee to the buyers and are clearly covered by the language of sec. 4[l][a], which reads,— "4. Application of Act.—[1] Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from whatever source derived which— [a] are received or are deemed to be received in the taxable territories in such year by or on behalf of such person, or 11. The principle underlying the relevant part of sec. 4[1] of the Act is to make the income liable to tax dependent upon the locality of accrual or receipt. Amongst the three categories of the assessees envisaged under the Act the assessee before us is indisputably "non-resident" because it ordinarily carried on business in Udaipur, a territory outside the taxable territory in the assessment year 1945-46. The transactions covered by items [a] and [b] are actually the deposits made in the assessees accounts in British India and item [c] was received in cash at Bombay and are, therefore, incomes received within the taxable territory. Clause [a] of subs sec. 4[l] charges amongst others even the non-residents. Receipt in India attract-tax regardless of the fact where the income accrued Reference in this connection may be made to Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras vs. Diwan Bahadur S. L. Mathias[4]. [d] Rs. Clause [a] of subs sec. 4[l] charges amongst others even the non-residents. Receipt in India attract-tax regardless of the fact where the income accrued Reference in this connection may be made to Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras vs. Diwan Bahadur S. L. Mathias[4]. [d] Rs. 14,919—The facts found by the Tribunal in regard to this sum of money are that the cheques were drawn by the buyers in British India on Banks in British India and were collected by the assessee through its Bankers in Indian States (non-taxable territory) and acting as assessees agents. In the statement of the case under sec. 66(1) paragraph 10 the Tribunal says; — "That it was proper to assume that the cheques must have been sent to the assessee |in pursuance of its implied request to send them by post and held that these sale proceeds were also received in British India." 12. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that there was no evidence to show that the cheques were firstly sent at the request of the assessee and secondly; that they were sent by post. The Tribunal itself proceeded on assump-tion on these two important facts. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on S. Zoraster & Co.s case (5). The assessee therein had his place of business in Jaipur at the relevant time, not being a taxable territory. The assessee despatched the goods to the Government of India from Jaipur. In the bills sent by the assessee it had requested payment by cheque drawn on the Reserve Bank of India at Bombay and the receipts were incorporated therein. After the receipt of the goods the Government of India made payment by cheques which were received by the assessee at Jaipur, and the assessee made them over to a Hindu undivided family at Jaipur and that firm sent them for collection to Bombay where they were realised. There was no material on record to show how these cheques were sent by the Government of India to the assessee and the place where the payments were to be made. There was no material on record to show how these cheques were sent by the Government of India to the assessee and the place where the payments were to be made. Nor was there a finding that the Government of India was invariably sending the cheques to Jaipur through the post The learned Judges of the Delhi High Court held that : "The assessee received the payments at Jaipur outside the taxable territories and the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India must be deemed to have been received by the assessee outside the taxable territories. The burden of proving that the assessee received any income, gain or profit within the taxable territories is on the revenue. The department cannot ask the court to presume facts and circumstances in its favour. The factum of the cheques towards payment for supplies having been sent through post must be proved and cannot be presumed." 13. In Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(6), Turner Morrison & Go , Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal(7) and Zoraster & Go. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 8), it has been held that the realisation of the cheques in British India does not alter the fact regarding the receipt of the payment. The crucial test, however, is in regard to the place where the sale was made or the payment was received. The learned Tribunal on its own showing has proceeded on the assumption in regard to the request made by the assessee for sending the price of the products by means of cheques and about the cheques being sent from British India. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges of the Delhi High Court and are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error when it included the sales represented by the sum of Rs. 14.919/- as income received in taxable territory. Our attention was also invited to the Supreme Court case in Civil Appeals Nos. 2012 and 2013 of 1968 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi vs. M/s. S. Zoraster & Company decided on September 24, 1971, arising out of the case from the Delhi High Court. 14.919/- as income received in taxable territory. Our attention was also invited to the Supreme Court case in Civil Appeals Nos. 2012 and 2013 of 1968 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi vs. M/s. S. Zoraster & Company decided on September 24, 1971, arising out of the case from the Delhi High Court. We need not refer to it because their Lordships found that in the Delhi case the certificate issued by the High Court was not proper and they did not examine the question on merits. (e) Rs. 2,55,313—This amount of money was received by hundies drawn by the assessee on buyers in British India, The "Hundi" along with the relevant railway receipts were sent by the assessees Bankers at Udaipur to their branches in British India. The railway receipts were delivered to the buyers in British India against payment of the amounts of the "hundi". The assessees Bankers at Udaipur had, however, advanced monies against the "hundis" before their realisation. The freight and the Bank charges were borne by the buyers. (f) Rs. 23,450—This sum of money was received by means of "hundis" drawn by the buyers and discounted by the assessees Bankers Bharat Bank and Rajasthan Bank Ltd. at Udaipur. 14. Transactions (e) and (f) have common features. The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that when the Bank purchased or discounted the "hundi" from a customer and allowed the assessee to withdraw the amount before the bill was cleared, the Bank was collecting money for itself in the taxable territory. The railway receipt having been handed over to the Bank in the nontaxable territory and the Bank in its turn having discounted and passed the price of it in Udaipur, a non-taxable territory, the price was received in non-taxable territory and the assessee was not liable. Reliance was placed on Commissioner Income-tax, M. P. v. Shivnarayan Harigopal(9). 15. On behalf of the revenue Mr. Bhandari submitted that the negotiations of the "hundi" by the Bank before the goods were delivered to the buyer was a part of the banking business and did not mean that the sales took place when the Banks discounted the "hundis" in the non-taxable territory. Reliance was placed on Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax(10) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal vs. Bhopal Textiles Ltd. (11). 16. Reliance was placed on Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax(10) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal vs. Bhopal Textiles Ltd. (11). 16. Put in other words the question is whether the amount of money, which the assessees Bankers credited to the assessees accounts in the nontaxable territory could be called the price of the goods supplied by the buyer. The answer tot his question in our opinion must be in the negative. In Seth Pushalal Mansinghkas case (10) the facts were these. The assessee had its mica mines at Bhilwara in Part B State. It exported mica by rail to Kodaram and Giridih in Part A and Part C States respectively. The purchasers agents before purchase visited Bhilwara, inspected the quality of the mica they wanted to purchase and thereafter entered into contracts, which were to be of Bhilwara godown delivery. The railway receipts were sent through the Banks. Twenty-five per cent of the price was paid in advance. The banking charges were to be borne by the buyers. On leaving Bhilwara the consignments were entirely at the buyers risk. The assessee firm of Bhilwara consigned the goods to self. The railway receipts and bills of exchange were given to the Rajasthan Bank for collection The railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the Bank which in its turn endorsed them in favour of its branches in Part A and Part C States. The price was paid by the buyers to the Banks in Part A and Part C States and the goods were collected. Some of the bills were discounted by the Bank. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in these circumstances observed as follows : "It is clear, therefore, that when the appellant negotiated the hundi with the banker, the latter did so only as a part of its banking business. Even if there was a purchase of the hundi by the banker, it cannot mean that there was a sale of the goods to the banker. In the first place, there was no agreement between the banker and the seller for the sale of the goods. Secondly, the banker had only a security over the goods till the price was paid by the buyer. To hold otherwise would mean that the seller committed a breach of contract with the buyer and sold the goods to the banker. Secondly, the banker had only a security over the goods till the price was paid by the buyer. To hold otherwise would mean that the seller committed a breach of contract with the buyer and sold the goods to the banker. That is, however, not the case. The appellant only performed this contract with the buyer in accordance with the usual commercial practice. Therefore, if any money was paid by the bank to the appellant as price for the hundi, it was not the sale price of the goods in any sense and the bank was not acting as the agent of the buyer. On the other hand, the purchase of the hundi by the bank was only a convenient arrangement between the bank and its own customer, the appellant, to avoid freezing of credit of the latter and it was done in the course of its usual banking transactions." In this view of the matter their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the income accrued to the appellant Seth Pushalal Mansinghka. the assessee, in Part A and C States and the appellant was not, therefore, entitled to any rebate under Part B States (Taxation Concession Order 1950). 17. The case of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhopal Textiles Mills Ltd (11) is also relevant. Goods were supplied to the Government of India and its nominees from Bhopal, a non-taxable territory, to Agra, Allahabad and Delhi in British India. The railway receipts were in the name of the buyer. They were forwarded through banks to be delivered against payment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the income must be deemed to have been received by the assessee in British India and the reason for the view was that the railway receipt was a document of title to goods and for all purposes, represented the goods. The railway receipt was given on payment in British India and the property in the goods was thus transferred The bank acted as the assessees agent and not that of the buyer because the bank was to obey the sellers instructions. 18. Commissioner of I.T., M.P. vs. Shivnarayan Hargopal(9) no doubt supports the contention of the assessee. The facts of this case were that goods from Indore (non-taxable territory) were sent to taxable territory. 18. Commissioner of I.T., M.P. vs. Shivnarayan Hargopal(9) no doubt supports the contention of the assessee. The facts of this case were that goods from Indore (non-taxable territory) were sent to taxable territory. Proceeding on the ground that the bank, after purchasing and discounting an instrument from the customer, credited the customer with the amount of the instrument and allowed him to draw against the amount so credited before the bill of instrument was cleared, then the bank was collecting the money not for the customer but chiefly for itself. In such a case,the bank did not act as a mere conduit pipe for conveying the instrument to the person on whom it was drawn and received the money from him, for its customer and the position of the bank as a holder for value of the instrument was not converted into one of agent for collection on behalf of the customer merely because, in the event of default in payment by the person in whose name the negotiable instrument was drawn, the bank was entitled to the statutory protection against the customer drawing the instrument. In taking this view the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were following an earlier decision of their own court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmichand Much-hel(12). With great respect we are-unable to agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Their attention was evidently not invited to Seth Pu3halal Mansinghkas case (10) although it was decided on May 5, 1967, some five months before their decision. The bank when it advanced money or credited on a hundi it was merely acting in accordance with the commercial practice without acquiring any property in the railway receipt, which was intended to be delivered to the buyer on receipt of price. We need not report all the arguments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court plainly runs counter to the opinion expressed in the Madhya Pradeshs case (12). 19. Our answer, therefore, to the second question is that excepting the item No. (d) representing a sum of Rs. 14,919/- the Tribunal rightly held that the sales under items (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) were made in and the price was received in taxable territory and they were, therefore, liable to tax. 20. 19. Our answer, therefore, to the second question is that excepting the item No. (d) representing a sum of Rs. 14,919/- the Tribunal rightly held that the sales under items (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) were made in and the price was received in taxable territory and they were, therefore, liable to tax. 20. We answer this question accordingly. 21. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costa.