Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. The respondent is a dealer in blue metals. For the asst. yr. 1966-67 he reported in form A-1 a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1, 92, 451.33 and Rs. 1, 17, 032.96 respectively. On the ground that he had charge separately the cost of transport in the sale bills, he had claimed a deduction to an extent of Rs. 72, 492.96 from the total turnover. It has now been found that only to an extent of Rs. 49, 318.04 transport charges are shown separately in the sale bills and therefore this order relates only to that amount. The assessing authority held that though the amount is shown separately in the sale bills, the order placed by the various purchasers was only in a fixed sum per unit of blue metal to be supplied at the site of the purchaser. This order was confirmed by the AAC. But on a further appeal, the Tribunal thought that since it is separately shown in the sale bills, the respondent is entitled to deduct the amount from the total turnover. It is as against this order the Revenue has filed this revision petition. 2. It is seen from the record that the respondent supplied blue metal to three companies viz., Simplex Concrete Piles (India) (P) Ltd., Sathyanarayana Brothers, and Coromandal Engineering Company (P) Ltd. In all these cases the purchasers places an order agreeing to pay at a particular rate per unit of 100 c. ft. for the supply of blue metal at the purchaser's site. But while preparing the bill the respondent dealer had separated the cost of blue metal and the transport charges, the total of which came to the rate per unit agreed to be paid by the purchaser. These facts clearly show that so far as the purchaser is concerned he agreed to pay a lump sum at the agreed rate for the supply of blue metal at his site ad he was not concerned with either the mode of transport or the cost of transport. The order is for payment of a consolidated price. In these circumstances, we are at loss to understand how the respondent would be entitled to claim the deduction merely on the ground that he had chosen to separately show the transport charges in the bills prepared by him. The order is for payment of a consolidated price. In these circumstances, we are at loss to understand how the respondent would be entitled to claim the deduction merely on the ground that he had chosen to separately show the transport charges in the bills prepared by him. Learned counsel strenuously contended that R. 6(c) which required the freight charges to be deducted does not impose any condition as to the agreement of the parties to pay for the charges separately. According to the learned counsel, if in the bill the vendor has chosen to dissect the total cost into cost of the material and the transport charges he is entitled to deduct the transport charges from the total turnover. The argument is not warranted either by the language of R. 6(c) or the decided cases. The rule speaks of freight being charged separately without including them in the price of goods sold. If the order by the purchaser was for a particular price, from the fact that in agreeing to supply the material at that price the vendor would have taken into account the transport charges also, it could not be stated that the price was not inclusive of the transport charges. In a similar case in T.C. No. 386 of 1970 (The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Dy. Commn. of Commercial Taxes, Madras-6 vs. Parry and Co. Madras-1, after nothing the decided cases we have held that unless the transport charges are incidental for the sale or the transport charges was incurred on behalf of the purchaser and the sale price did not include the transport charges, the dealer will not be entitled to deduct the transport charges from the total turnover merely on the ground that he has chosen to show the transport charges separately in the bill prepared by him. As already stated, in the instant case, the purchaser agreed to pay only a consolidated sum at a particular rate per unit of blue metal to be supplied and there was no agreement with references to the transport charges separately. In fact, the purchaser does not know even how much he would have to pay for each lorry load of blue metal to be supplied and there is no evidence to show that there was a consesus on the amount of freight to be charged per unit of blue metal to be supplied. In fact, the purchaser does not know even how much he would have to pay for each lorry load of blue metal to be supplied and there is no evidence to show that there was a consesus on the amount of freight to be charged per unit of blue metal to be supplied. "We have therefore no doubt that the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and we accordingly allow this petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.