JUDGMENT : Pasayat, J. - On being moved by an application u/s 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act"), this Court had directed the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") to refer the following question along with statement of facts : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is correct to hold that the dealer-opponent is not liable to pay tax on value of the tyre paid in the form of a used one and cash on account of replacement of defective tyres ?" Pursuant to direction, the Tribunal has stated the case for the opinion of this Court. 2. Background facts as depicted in the statement of facts are as follows : The dealer carries on business in motor tyres and tubes. For the assessment year 1975-76, assessment was completed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I, East Circle, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing officer"), raising a demand of Rs. 45,009 on two counts. The aspect with which we are concerned relates to levy of tax on the estimated value of tyres returned and replaced by new ones. The assessing officer noticed that where the assessee replaced new tyres against the defective tyres, deduction in price was given. The assessing officer gave an illustration. He took the cost of tyre at Rs. 1,000 and deduction at Rs. 400. It was not disputed that while selling the tyres originally tax was paid on the illustrated amount of Rs. 1,000. According to the assessing officer, the State lost tax on a sum of Rs. 400 as sale memo for Rs. 1,000 plus tax should have been given and credit note of Rs. 600 should have been given if the dealer wanted to give any deduction. This according to the assessing officer would have been the proper procedure. The plea that such practice of grant of deduction was being uniformly adopted throughout the country was not accepted by the assessing officer who was of the view that there was no provision for grant of such deduction, though it was accepted that tyres were given back on account of manufacturing defect. The matter was carried in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack Range, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate authority"). The matter was carried in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack Range, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate authority"). The said authority took note of earlier decisions of the Tribunal in respect of the selfsame issue in case of the dealer and came to hold that the approach of the assessing officer was baneful. Accordingly, extra demands on that score were nullified. The Revenue carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. Following its earlier view the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. An application u/s 24(1) of the Act was moved by the Revenue to refer the following questions to this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is correct to hold that the dealer-opponent is not liable to pay tax on value of the tyre paid in the form of a used one and cash on account of replacement of defective tyres ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Sales Tax Tribunal does not directly offend the provisions of explanation to Section 2(i) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Rule 4-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 and is therefore against the law ?" 3. The Tribunal was of the view that the questions are not referable. So far as the second question is concerned the Tribunal was of the view that the same did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and therefore, question of making a reference does not arise. On being moved by an application u/s 24(2) of the Act, direction as aforeindicated was given. 4. Mr. Mohanty for the Revenue submits that "sale" means transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and price is one of the essential ingredients of sale. While price must consist of money, part of it may be provided for exchange of an article or articles. If the article is received in exchange, it becomes a barter and not a sale. Since in the instant case, price was by both cash and kind, cost of the tyre and octroi duty has been rightly levied by the assessing officer and the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the same. Mr. If the article is received in exchange, it becomes a barter and not a sale. Since in the instant case, price was by both cash and kind, cost of the tyre and octroi duty has been rightly levied by the assessing officer and the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the same. Mr. Agarwalla for the assesses on the other hand, contends that the tax is leviable on the sale price. Admittedly, here the tax had been paid on the cost of tyre which was originally purchased by the customer. Subsequently the same being found defective was accepted back by the dealer and a concession of price was given. The case of the Revenue that price was both in cash and kind is raised for the first time. It was accepted althrough that there was exchange of the articles. In fact the assessing officer himself found that because of manufacturing defect, the tyres were exchanged. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the charge made was for wear and tear of the tyre which was sought to be replaced. The dealer is required to pay sales tax on the amount actually charged from the customer. There is no occasion to require the dealer to pay tax on an amount which is not charged from the customer as sale price, while replacing the tyre by way of exchange. No deduction is made from any sales lax charged on the entire sale price of the initial transaction. Therefore, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the dealer was not required to pay any extra tax in addition to what has been charged on the price of the replaced tyres. A similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ceat Tyres of India, It was not the case of the Revenue that the customer paid any value of tyre in the form of a used one. The accepted case is one of exchange. The question referred to does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we decline to answer it. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. 5. I agree.