A. P. SINGH, J. This bunch of sales tax revisions filed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act are connected with each other and relate to the State and Central sales tax liabilities of the applicant in different assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and involve a common question of law which obviously justify their disposal by a common order with S. T. R. No. 816 of 1993 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 (Central) as the leading case. 2. The question of law which arises for decision in all these cases is squarely covered by an earlier division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of A. P. v. Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111. The question is "whether the amount of excise duty initially paid by the manufacturer but subsequently refundable to him by the Government, which although included in bill sent to the purchaser is liable to be included in his taxable turnover although the said amount of excise duty has neither been paid by the purchaser nor is payable by him under the contract entered between him and the assesses. " 3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court on identical facts and law speaking through honourable Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, erstwhile Chief Justice of this Court and presently a puisne Judge of the apex Court of the land answering the question in the negative held that excise duty which is neither paid nor payable by the buyer cannot be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The learned Judges while coming to the above conclusion took into consideration the definition of "turnover" in the States Sales Tax Act (sic) and "sale price" in the Central Sales Tax Act. 4. In brief, the facts of the case may be stated as follows M/s. Indian Aluminium Cables Pvt. Ltd. , 7/1, G. T. Road, Ghaziabad, which is a registered public limited company under the Companies Act 1956 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ACSR/aac, AAAC conductors and is registered as dealer both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts. Certain projects happened to be financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (for short, "the IBRD") and International Development Association (IDA ). Certain projects happened to be financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (for short, "the IBRD") and International Development Association (IDA ). The requisite funds were provided both by the IBRD and IDA in hard (foreign) currency and supplies to the recipients were to be made on the basis of global tenders. In case any Indian party succeeded in getting the tender as per the scheme sponsored by the Central Government the supplies by the manufacturers to the parties within the country were to be treated as export for the purposes of extension of facilities to the exporters. The Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade vide Circular dated January 7, 1970 addressed to the Secretary, Engineering Export Promotion Council, Calcutta, also extended same facilities to the suppliers on the basis of deemed export, which are normally admissible to the actual export, one such facility was the facility of cash assistance by way of reimbursement of the amount covered by the excise duty paid for the articles which are subject-matter of supplies by him to the aided projects by the IBRD and IDA. 5. Applicant being successful tenderer in the global tenders floated for making supplies of conductors received orders for supplies of the conductors (popularly known in the trading world as cables) to M/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, Haryana State Electricity Board and others. In the bills it raised to the parties it included the amount of excise duty in the gross liability of the purchaser but the said amount was then deducted on the ground that its refund was to be claimed back from the Central Government by JCCIDE. The net amount thus payable by the purchaser as shown in the bill was minus the amount paid by the supplier by way of excise duty. 6. The applicant filed his return before the Sales Tax Officer disclosing his turnover on the net amount of the bills so raised by him. The turnover so disclosed by the applicant was not accepted by the sales tax authorities who insisted that since, as per the bill, the amount of excise duty was shown in the value of the goods, it was liable for inclusion for arriving at the amount of turnover of the assessee as the said amount of excise duty was payable by the assessee as per the bill raised. It is immaterial whether the said amount of the excise duty is ultimately paid by the purchaser or the assessee or a third person on his behalf. 7. Thus in view of the two contradictory stands taken on behalf of the assessee and the department, it is, therefore, necessary first to examine as a fact as to whether the liability to pay excise duty which normally is that of the manufacturer is being borne by the assessee himself or by a third person on his behalf. The Government Order dated January 7, 1970, a copy whereof has been filed with the revision application, would show that the Central Government has made a general policy decision to refund the amount of excise duty on all the sales made by manufacturer to the projects aided by IBRD and IDA. The scheme sponsored by the Central Government is for the purpose of promoting local manufacturers of conductors or other articles to compete with foreign manufacturer in the global tenders floated for supply of articles in question to the local consumers in connection with the projects aided by the IBRD and IDA. It is not a case where the liability of the assessee regarding payment of excise duty is being shifted either on the purchaser of the goods or on someone else. The contract entered into between the applicant and the purchaser, a copy whereof has been supplied at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the applicant also discloses that there is a specific stipulation to the effect that the amount of excise duty which normally forms part of the price of the goods supplied was not to be paid by the assessee in view of the scheme sponsored by the Central Government for refund of the said amount to the manufacturer in respect of die supplies made to the purchaser. On overall consideration of the scheme of the Central Government, vide circular letter dated January 7, 1976, the bill which was raised by the assessee against the purchaser and the contract entered into between the assessee and the purchaser, I feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the amount of excise duty did not, under the scheme, form part of the price of the goods supplied by the assessee to the purchaser and the purchaser was under no liability to pay to the assessee the amount covered by the excise duty in that respect nor the purchaser ever paid the said duty as a consideration for the purchase of the goods (conductors) from the assessee. 8. Now it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act for the purpose of examining as to what exactly is assessable to tax under these two Acts at the hands of the assessee. Under section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short, "the U. P. Act") sales tax is payable by a dealer for each assessment year at the rates provided under section 3-A or under section 3-D on his turnover of sales or turnover of purchase or both, as the case may be. Sub-section (1), which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows " 3-A (1 ). Sub-section (1), which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows " 3-A (1 ). Except as provided in section 3-D, the tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied, - (a) on the turnover in respect of declared goods, at the point of sale to the consumer at the maximum rate for the time being specified in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or where the State Government, by notification, declares any other single point or a lesser rate, at such other point or at such lesser rate; (b) on the turnover in respect of any food or drink served for consumption in a hotel or restaurant or part thereof, with which a cabaret or floor show is provided therein, at such rate, not exceeding forty per cent, as the State Government may, by notification, declare; (c) on the turnover of spirits and spirituous liquors of all kinds including methyl alcohol but excluding alcohol, as defined in the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, at the point of sale by the manufacturer or importer or such other single point as the State Government may by notification declare at the rate of twenty per cent or at such rate not exceeding twenty-six per cent, as the State Government may, by notification declare; (d) on the turnover in respect of goods specified, in the Schedule, at such point and at such rate, not exceeding fifteen per cent, as the State Government may, by notification, declare, and different points and different rates may be declared in respect of different goods comprised in any entry in the said Schedule : Provided that the State Government may, by notification, omit the entry relating to any goods from the Schedule and may, in the like manner, restore any entry so omitted, and upon the issue of any such notification omitting or restoring any entry, the said Schedule shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be deemed to be amended accordingly; (e) on the turnover in respect of goods, other than those referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), at the point of sale by the manufacturer or importer at the rate of eight per cent : Provided that the State Government may, from time to time by notification, modify the rate or point of tax on the turnover in respect of any such goods, with effect from such date as may be notified in that behalf, so, however, that the rate does not exceed eight per cent. " 9. Thus the liability of the assessee for a particular assessment year for payment of sales tax at the rates provided in the Act is in respect of his turnover either of sales or of purchases or of both, as the case may be. In section 2 of the U. P. Act various terms have been defined. For the purpose of this case, definition of words "purchase price" in clause (gg), "turnover, in clause (i) and "turnover of purchases" in clause (ii) deserve to be noticed and are being extracted below : " (gg) purchase price means the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable by a person for the purchase of any goods, less any sum allowed by the seller as cash discount according to trade practice, and shall include any sum charged for anything done by the seller 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. " " (i) turnover means the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or are sold by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his account or on account of others, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. " " (ii) turnover of purchases with its cognate expressions means the aggregate of the amounts of purchase price paid or payable by a dealer in respect of purchases of goods made by or through him after deducting the amount, if any, refunded to the dealer by the seller in respect of any goods returned to such seller within such period as may be prescribed. " 10. From the definition of the words "purchase price", it would appear that it is the amount paid or payable by a person for the purchase of goods and also includes any sum charged for any thing done in respect of the goods before or at the time of delivery thereof. What is relevant is the valuable consideration paid or payable for the purchase of the goods. Similarly, "turnover", which is defined in clause (i) means the aggregate amount for which the goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale by a dealer. What is relevant is the valuable consideration paid or payable for the purchase of the goods. Similarly, "turnover", which is defined in clause (i) means the aggregate amount for which the goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale by a dealer. Similarly, "turnover of purchases" means the aggregate amount of price in respect of purchase of goods made by or through him. Thus, from the above it is noticeable that emphasise is on the price or consideration paid or payable for the purchase or supply of goods by the purchaser. 11. Similarly, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, section 6 is the provision which imposes tax on all sales effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. "sale" and "sale price" as well as "turnover" have been defined in section 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act in clauses (g), (h) and (j ). The definitions of these words, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, are being extracted below : " (g) sale, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration, and includes a transfer of goods on the hire-purchase or other system of payment by instalments, but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods; (h) sale price means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged; (j) turnover used in relation to any dealer liable to tax under this Act means the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by him in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any prescribed period and determined in the prescribed manner. " 12. " 12. The word "sale" as has been defined, means a transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration. "sale price" according to the Act, means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods which may be inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods either before the delivery or at the time of the delivery less the sum allowed to the dealer as cash discount. Similarly, the term "turnover" has been defined to mean the aggregate of the sale price received and receivable by him in respect of the sale of goods. 13. Thus in the Central Sales Tax Act as well emphasis is on the amount paid or payable by the purchaser in respect of the goods sold to him by the assessee. 14. On a combined reading of both - State Act and the Central Act, it is beyond controversy that the tax is leviable on the turnover of sales or sales made by the assessee in a particular assessment year. The amount of turnover and the amount of sale are to be reached on the basis of the amount which is actually paid or payable by the purchaser for the supply of goods. It has no relation to the price of the goods, i. e. , if the price of the goods inclusive of the excise duty supplied by the assessee to the purchaser is Rs. 10 but instead of Rs. 10, Rs. 15 is charged by the seller from the purchaser then for the purpose of fixing turnover of the sale price for the purpose of fixation tax liability under these two Acts, the actual money paid or payable by the purchaser will be relevant and not the price of the goods and sales tax will be assessed at Rs. 15 and not at Rs. 10. On the other hand, if the price of the goods is Rs. 15 inclusive of the excise duty, if however purchaser is required to pay only Rs. 10 for purchase of that goods, the "sale price" or the "turnover of sale" in respect of the goods will be determined on the basis of the amount paid or payable by the purchaser in respect of that goods which is Rs. 15 inclusive of the excise duty, if however purchaser is required to pay only Rs. 10 for purchase of that goods, the "sale price" or the "turnover of sale" in respect of the goods will be determined on the basis of the amount paid or payable by the purchaser in respect of that goods which is Rs. 10 and not Rs. 15. In the present case, admittedly, the purchaser under the scheme of the Central Government as well as under the contract entered into between him and the assessee was required to pay the price of the goods minus the amount of excise duty-payable thereon. The bill sent to him by the seller also indicated the net liability of the purchaser being the price of the goods reached after adding the excise duty but subsequently deducting the said amount for determining the net liability. In the circumstances, there should appear no confusion whatsoever for the purpose of knowing as to what is the amount paid or payable by the purchaser for the transfer of the goods by the assessee in his favour as per the bill raised by the assessee. The contract of supply and Scheme of the Central Government wherefrom it is absolutely clear that the liability of the purchaser for the purchase of goods does not include the liability of paying excise duty which is levied thereon under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the reason that the said amount is being reimbursed to the assessee by the Central Government. It was on these facts that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111, held that the excise duty component could not be included in the turnover of the assessee. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111, as the same is absolutely in consonance with the scheme of both Central and State Sales Tax Acts. 15. A similar view has also been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sakthi Engineering Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [1993] 91 STC 59. In this case also reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111. A similar view has also been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sakthi Engineering Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [1993] 91 STC 59. In this case also reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111. In somewhat identical case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in [1969] 24 STC 487, the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of determining turnover the amount of freight which is not payable by the purchaser under the scheme sponsored by the assessee for meeting competition from other manufacturers was not to be included in the sale price or in the turnover for the reason that the amount of freight was not payable by the purchaser. In yet another identical case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1991] 83 STC 129, a division Bench of that court held that amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Central Government in respect of the sale of fertiliser was not to be included for the purpose of determining turnover under section 2 (s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the reason that the said amount was not required to be paid by the purchaser. 16. The learned standing counsel supporting the view taken by the sales tax authorities in this case urged that since levy of excise duty is a must under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the amount of excise duty paid by the assessee in respect of the goods has, in any case, to be added to the turnover disclosed by the assessee and the actual turnover has to be determined by adding the amount of excise duty paid by the assessee. It was emphasised that a perusal of the bill raised by the assessee on the purchaser would also show that he had recovered Central sales tax on the gross liability of the purchaser for the supply of goods by adding the amount of excise duty paid by him in respect of the goods whereafter the said amount of excise duty has been deducted for the purpose of determining the net liability of the assessee. This, therefore, will make it clear, according to the learned Standing Counsel, that to the mind of the assessee himself the turnover for the purpose of payment of sales tax both under the Central and the State Sales Tax Acts, the amount of excise duty was to be included. According to the learned State counsel reimbursement of the amount of the excise duty to the assessee by the Central Government under the scheme sponsored that Government would at the most mean payment or reimbursement of the excise duty on the goods to the assessee on behalf of the purchaser because the assessee being manufacturer is first obliged, under the excise law, to pay the duty at the time of the lifting of the goods by him from the factory although he is entitled to recover the said amount like any other expenditure incurred by him in that respect (either for its manufacture or for its supply to the purchaser) from the purchaser of those goods, so the recovery of the amount of excise duty made by him in respect of the supply of the goods either from the purchaser or from the Central Government on behalf of the purchaser which has undertaken to reimburse the price of the goods to the extent of the amount of the excise duty, will amount to the payment of the consideration for the supply of the goods by the purchaser and the excise duty component paid in respect of the goods in any case by the Government has to be included in the turnover of sale or the "sale price". Therefore, it can at the most be assumed that the liability of purchaser towards the price of the goods in relation to the excise duty component which, but for the scheme of the Central Government, was to be paid by him for the purchase of the goods is being shifted to the Central Government and, therefore, non-payment thereof by the purchaser will be of no consequence for the purpose of determining the turnover of the assessee. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Wines, Hyderabad v. Special Commercial Tax Officer and other connected cases reported in [1987] 65 STC 48; 1987 UPTC 1498. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Wines, Hyderabad v. Special Commercial Tax Officer and other connected cases reported in [1987] 65 STC 48; 1987 UPTC 1498. In this case the Supreme Court held that the amount of sales tax collected by the assessee from the purchaser is part of the turnover and comes within the expression "any other sum charged by the dealer whatever be the description, name or object thereof". In coming to the conclusion, the Supreme Court observed that since there is no provision in the Act imposing legal obligation of the vendor to recover sales tax on the goods sold from the vendor, as such, the amount paid by the purchaser in that respect to the seller will also constitute turnover. I wonder how reliance has been placed on this case as it bears no similarity to the controversy involved in the present case. 17. Next case cited is Mcdowell & Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Secunderabad reported in [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC); 1985 UPTC 747. In this case the Supreme Court held that the amount of excise duty which was paid directly to the State exchequer by the purchaser of the excisable articles on behalf of the manufacturer will form part of the turnover of sale of the manufacturer under section 2 (s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, irrespective that the said amount of excise duty was not included in the bill which was raised by the assessee against the purchaser of the excisable articles for the supply of the commodity in question. The Supreme Court came to the said conclusion on the basis that for the purchase of the goods the amount of excise duty was paid by the purchaser on behalf of the assessee himself at the time of the lifting of the goods by him from the bonded warehouse as the same was a pre-condition for the lifting of the excisable articles from the bonded warehouse under the local Excise Act. The Supreme Court turned down the contention of the assessee that since the bill raised for the supply of the goods was not inclusive of the amount of excise duty, as such, the same was not to be included in the turnover of sale of the assessee. The Supreme Court turned down the contention of the assessee that since the bill raised for the supply of the goods was not inclusive of the amount of excise duty, as such, the same was not to be included in the turnover of sale of the assessee. The facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case under consideration before the Supreme Court in Mcdowell & Co. case [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC); 1985 UPTC 747 (SC) where the excise duty which was payable by the assessee at the initial stage of lifting of the goods from the bonded warehouse was paid by the purchaser on his behalf as the purchaser himself lifted the goods under sale from the bonded warehouse on assessees behalf and authorisation and the amount representing the excise duty paid thereon by the purchaser constituted the price of goods sold by the assessee to the purchaser, therefore, the Supreme Court held on the facts of that case that excise duty component although not included in the bill raised by the assessee was liable to be included in the turnover of the assessee for the reason that the purchaser had already paid the said amount before lifting of the goods from the bonded warehouse. No assistance, therefore, can be drawn from this judgment of the Supreme Court by the Standing Counsel. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1979] 413 STC 13, in which the Supreme Court held that under the scheme of the Rajasthan Cement Control Order relating to the sale of cement on control price, the amount of freight which was paid by the producer (assessee) and subsequently recovered from the purchaser had to constitute as part of the taxable turnover of sale. This judgment is also distinguishable on facts as there too the amount of freight was ultimately paid by the purchaser. This judgment is also distinguishable on facts as there too the amount of freight was ultimately paid by the purchaser. This decision, therefore, has no relation to the controversy raised in the present case where component of excise duty is not payable by the purchaser for the reason that the liability of the manufacturer (assessee) in that regard was to be reimbursed by the Central Government under the scheme sponsored by it which was duly noticed in the contract of supply entered into between the assessee and the purchaser which specifically provided that the amount of excise duty shall not be payable by the purchaser for the supply of the goods. To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1993] 88 STC 151; AIR 1993 SC 123 . In this judgment also the Supreme Court held that the amount of freight paid by the assessee on behalf of the purchaser was liable to be included for arriving at the amount of taxable turnover in both the Acts, namely, State and Central Sales Tax Acts. The facts of Ramco Cement [1993] 88 STC 151 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 123 also demonstrate that the amount of freight was actually paid by the purchaser as the same was payable by him for the purchase of the goods from the assessee. 18. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, that the amount of excise duty chargeable on the goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act as of necessity has to be included for determining the amount of taxable turnover of the assessee is not acceptable simply for the reason that the said amount of excise duty is neither paid nor is payable by the, purchaser. The cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel do not subscribe to the view as taken by the sales tax authorities in the present case nor the cases cited render any assistance to the argument raised in support thereof by the learned Standing Counsel. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sales tax authorities have committed grave illegality in reaching to the conclusion which is unwarranted by the provisions of the sales tax laws whether of Central or of the State by including the amount of excise duty for determining the taxable turnover of the assessee. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sales tax authorities have committed grave illegality in reaching to the conclusion which is unwarranted by the provisions of the sales tax laws whether of Central or of the State by including the amount of excise duty for determining the taxable turnover of the assessee. 19. In the result, the revision applications are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. The return filed by the assessee showing his taxable turnover exclusive of the component of excise duty paid by him on the goods is, therefore, to be accepted and sales tax has to be assessed thereon. The applicants are also entitled to costs of the case from the respondents. Petition allowed. .