JUDGMENT RAY, C.J. - The petitioner as a lessee of various mines in the State of Orissa has entered into contracts with the Steel Authority of India, Rourkela, for supply of dolomite, quartz and limestone. He is also a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and has been allotted registration No. RL-1738. He supplied mineral ores like dolomite, etc., to the Steel Authority of India during 1977-78. He filed his return and paid tax along with the return amounting to Rs. 66,680.47. 2. The contract between the petitioner and the Steel Authority of India specifically stipulates that besides the sale price, the Steel Authority of India would pay separately the cost of transport involved in transporting the minerals, that is, dolomite, quartz and limestone, from the pit-head to the plant site of the Steel Authority of India. The place of delivery indicated in the contract is "f.o.r. pit-head". Pursuant to this provision in the contract, the petitioner billed the Steel Authority of India for the price of the goods sold and also separately for the transport charges. Two specimen bills have been annexed to this writ petition as annexures 2 and 2/1. 3. In the course of assessment for the year 1977-78, that is for the period 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1978, the opposite party by his order of assessment dated 30th October, 1978, held that a sum of Rs. 7,75,008.60 received by the petitioner on account of transport charges of the minerals sold to the Steel Authority of India is assessable to tax. This impugned order of assessment, annexure 3, was served on the petitioner on 25th November, 1978. As a result of this assessment order, a demand of tax to the tune of Rs. 79,673.00 has been raised against the petitioner. 4. The Petitioner has stated on the affidavit in paragraph 16 of his petition "that the aforesaid assessment order has been passed at the behest of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who on joint deliberation came to instruct all the Sales Tax Officers of the State to make assessments of transport charges separately billed for irrespective of the contractual stipulations and it is in pursuance of this direction and/or the policy decision that the impugned assessment has been made". It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has come to this Court directly, instead of taking recourse to any appeals or revision provided under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act), as the said appeals and/or revision would be "abortive" in view of the policy decision aforesaid. It is also contended that since the Sales Tax Officer has omitted to apply the correct provisions of the Act as amended by Act 3 of 1976, he has, thereby, committed an error apparent on the face of the record and it would be permissible to approach this Court direct to correct the same instead of resorting to the normal forums of appeals and/or revision provided in the statute. 5. Dealing with the question as to whether a sum of Rs. 7,75,008.60 received as freight for conveying the minerals from the pit-head to the Steel Authority's stockyard is leviable to sales tax on the basis that this amount is a part of the sale price, the opposite party came to the conclusion that it is a part of the sale price. The impugned order shows that the Sales Tax Officer considered some of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and the definition of "sale price" contained in section 2(b) of the Act. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer has been greatly influenced on account of the omission of words "other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged" from the definition of "sale price" as it originally stood, by the Amendment Act of 1976. He has concluded therefrom that "sale price" would include the cost of freight. This is clear from the following passage extracted from his order : ....... "In order to arrive at this point we shall have to make a reference to the definition of 'sale price' as incorporated in the O.S.T. Act, 1947, since sales tax is leviable on the sale price 'of a completed sale'. 'Sale price' as defined under section 2(h) of the O.S.T. Act means 'the amount payable by a dealer as consideration for the sale or supply of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of, or before, delivery thereof'. This is the present definition and earlier to this there was a further provision after the word 'delivery' there was 'other than the cost of freight paid or cost of installation when such cost is separately charged' (sic). This part of the definition has been deleted with effect from 1st June, 1976. On an analysis of the definition of 'sale price' it would be seen that there would have been absolutely no dispute in allowing the deduction on account of freight from the sales turnover when the same is charged separately, had Amendment Act of 1976 would not have omitted the same from the definition of 'sale price'. This is why the present definition of 'sale price' includes the the words 'any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of, or before, delivery thereof' forms a part of consideration, it only excludes cash discount from the amount received by the dealer for sale or supply of goods and includes any sum charged by the dealer which has to be understood in its ordinary popular sense and so construed it means what is demanded and collected or received by the dealer." 6. The reasoning of the Sales Tax Officer is apparently faulty and unsustainable on account of his omission to consider section 5, sub-section (2)(A), clause (a), sub-clause (iii), of the Act. 'Sale price' was orginally defined in section 2(h) of the Act. This definition ran as follows : "'Sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale or supply of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of, or before, delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged." The Act underwent some amendment by Amendment Act 3 of 1976. By this amendment, which same into force with effect from 1st June, 1976, the words "other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged" were deleted from the original definition of "sale price" in section 2(h) and were re-enacted as sub-clause (iii) to clause (a) of sub-section 2(A) of section 5 of the Act. This sub-clause runs as follows : "The cost of outward freight or of delivery or the cost of installation for the purpose of sale or supply of goods by the dealer when such cost is separately charged." Sub-section (2)(A) of section 5 provides that in this Act, the expression "taxable turnover" would mean that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom various items enumerated therein of which sub-clause (iii) is one. That means that the cost of outward freight or delivery or the cost of installation for the purpose of sale or supply of goods by the dealer when such cost is separately charged should also be excluded before reaching his taxable turnover. Thus, the apposite party has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in completely overlooking this amended provision of law which cuts at the root of his logic indicated in the extracted portion of his impugned order. 7. We would, therefore, quash the impugned order, annexure-3, and would remit the whole matter back to the Sales Tax Officer with a direction that he shall reconsider the whole matter after hearing the counsel for the assessee and also for the department and after taking into express consideration sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2)(A) of section 5 of the Act (as inserted by Amendment Act 3 of 1976). The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order for costs. Writ application is allowed. No costs. MOHANTY, J. - I agree.