Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. The petitioners are manufacturers and dealers in tractor parts, automobile parts etc. at Avadi. In respect of the asst. yr. 1966-67, they returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 6, 93, 495.63. In arriving at this turnover a sum of Rs. 10, 360-70 as representing the amount refunded by them in respect of the goods returned by the customers. They also claimed that they are not liable to pay sales tax on their sales of scrap amounting to Rs. 13, 308-32 on the ground that they are not dealers in scrap. We have not set out other fact relating to the assessment year as only these two items are in dispute in this. The AO disallowed the claim relating to the refund of the ground that there were no details available from which the sales returns could be correlated to the sales effected and that since it had not been proved that the goods had been returned within a period of six month after the date of sale, the claim for deduction is not admissible under s. 13(5) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, hereinafter called the Act. It was the case of assessee that goods were sold throughout the year and as and when they were returned, refund was effected and that they could not correlate the return to a particular sale. It is in those circumstances, the AO was not able to decide whether the return was within a period of six months. But the AAC and the Tribunal agreed with this view of the assessing authority and held that the disputed turnover was not admissible for deduction. In respect of the other turnover of Rs. 13, 308-32 representing sales of scrap, authorities took the view that the scrap is the by-product of the assessee's business and that, therefore, they are liable to be assessed to sales tax on the sale value of the scrap. 2. In respect of disputed turnover of Rs. 10, 360-70 representing the amount refunded in respect of goods returned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though they might not be entitled to claim the benefit of S. 13(5) of the Act, they are entitled to deduct that amount from the total turnover under R. 5-A(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules. In order to understand the relative scope of R. 5-A and S. 13(5), it is necessary to notice certain provisions of the Act and legislative history. Sec. 2(p) defined the words 'taxable turnover' as meaning 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. Rule 6 of the rules prescribed the manner in which the taxable turnover is to be determined. Total turnover is defined in s. 2(q) as meaning the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places in the State whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. Turnover itself is defined in S. 2(r) as meaning the aggregate amount for which the goods are bought or sold. It is not necessary to notice the other portion in the definition of 'turnover' but Expl. (2)(iii) to the definition of 'turnover' provided that subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed in this behalf, any amount refunded in respect of articles returned by customers shall not be included in the turnover. In exercise of this power to prescribe, R. 5-A(b)(i) provided that - "All amounts refunded to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer when the goods are taxable on the amount for which they have been sold........." * shall be excluded in the total turnover of a dealer, provided that the accounts show that date on which the goods were returned and the amount for which refund was made or credit was allowed to the purchaser. 3. We shall proceed to consider the effect of these provisions without reference to S. 13(5) of the Act which was introduced by the Madras Act XV of 1964 as that will have a bearing on the interpretation of s. 13(5) itself. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the assessee could only get a deduction from the total turnover of the amount refunded in respect of goods returned to them only in the year in which the refund was made and he could not deduct the amount refunded in any other previous year, even thought the sale with reference to which the refund was made was effected in that earlier year. In support of this contention, the learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras and a decision of the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vauhini Pictures (P) Ltd. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended that S. 3 which is the charging section refers to the turnover of each year and the definitions of "taxable turnover", total turnover"and the" turnover "in S. 2 will have to be understood only as referring to the turnover for each year and if so understood a deduction in respect of a return under R. 5-A(b)(i) could only be with reference to an amount refunded in respect of a sale effected during that year itself and if the sale was in one assessment year and the refund was in the subsequent assessment year, the refund could be deducted for ascertaining the total turnover. 4. It is true that the charging section refers to the total turnover for each year, but definitions of the words "turnover", "total turnover" and "taxable turnover" do not refer to the assessment year as such. If the sale is complete, a liability for tax is attracted. The fact that the goods are returned and the money refunded in the assessment year itself or in any subsequent year will not relieve that sale from the liability to tax. Expl. 2(iii) to S. 2(r) and R. 5-A(b)(i) only mitigated this rigor of the law. It enabled the dealer who was made to pay tax on the sale to get a deduction of the amount refunded at a subsequent stage. Having regard to this object, the operation of R. 5-A(b)(i) cannot be restricted to a case of refund within the assessment year itself. Rule 5-A(b)(i) itself does not state that the amount refunded shall be excluded from the total turnover of the year in which the sale took place. On the other hand, the words "when the goods are taxable on the amounts for which they have been sold" that the condition for deduction is that the amount for which the goods were sold should have been taxable when they were sold. The Rule has no reference to the year in which the goods themselves were sold. On the other hand, the words "when the goods are taxable on the amounts for which they have been sold" that the condition for deduction is that the amount for which the goods were sold should have been taxable when they were sold. The Rule has no reference to the year in which the goods themselves were sold. it is true, as the learned Government Pleader contended, that normally one would expect an amount to be deducted from a total turnover on the ground of refund only if the amount had already been included in the total turnover. But, unless the rules are clear and suggest that the amount refunded will have to be deducted only if the sale price had been included in that particular turnover, we are unable to put such strict construction on the rule. In fact, if that construction is permitted, many of the dealers who had effected sales towards the end of the assessment year might not be able to get the benefit of that rule, as the goods might have been returned in the succeeding year. Therefore, as the rules stood then, we are of the view that the dealer was entitled to exclude the amount refunded from the total turnover in the year in which the refund was made. The was the view expressed by this Court in Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras with reference to the corresponding R. 5(1)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. It was held in that case -" * If an allowance is made against the goods returned the deduction can be claimed only in the year in which that allowance has been made and to the real extent of that allowance, independent of the date of the sale. The rule itself makes that clear. The date of the sale decides the inclusion in the assessee's assessable turnover. The date of the allowance determines the exclusion from the gross turnover under s. 5(1)(b). "A similar view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vauhini Pictures (P) Ltd.