Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. The department is the petition herein. Before the assessing officer, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 44, 227.17 and Rs. 23, 267.01, totalling to Rs. 67, 494.18, since the sales were not fructified. 2. The assessment year involved in this revision is 1976-77. The assessing officer found that out of the claim Rs. 44, 227.17, the claim for Rs. 24, 713.79 is barred as it related to the assessment year 1975-76. Similarly in respect of detergent (branch) to the claim to the tune of Rs. 3, 308.88 was also found time-barred. In view of this, the assessing officer, disallowed the claim and accordingly levied tax at 8 per cent. on Rs. 24, 713.79 and 5 1/2 per cent. on Rs. 3, 308.88. On appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee made an alternative plea that inasmuch as the same goods were taxed twice, once in the assessment year 1975-76 and again in the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee is entitled to refund of sales tax paid. For the assessment year 1975-76, since goods sold are taxable at single point, the Tribunal accepted this plea put forward by the assessee and granted the relief as prayed for. It is against that order, the department is in revision before this Court. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that inasmuch as the assessee has not claimed exemption in the assessment year 1975-76, during which assessment year the goods were returned, the assessee cannot claim exemption in the subsequent year as per the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Reliance also was placed upon the decision in Traders and Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu 1977 (40) STC 289 (Mad.) [FB] in order to contend that the claim ought to have been made within six months from the date of return of the goods. Inasmuch as that was not done, it was submitted that the assessee is not entitled to any exemption as claimed. 4. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee, who supported the order passed by the Tribunal. The fact remains that the assessee offered to sell the goods in the assessment year 1975-76 and the same was returned. Hence the sale was not fructified. 4. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee, who supported the order passed by the Tribunal. The fact remains that the assessee offered to sell the goods in the assessment year 1975-76 and the same was returned. Hence the sale was not fructified. But, the tax on the intended sale turnover was collected by the department. The assessee claimed return of the tax in the subsequent assessment year, viz., in 1976-77. It is the contention of the department that the return of the tax can be claimed within six month from the date of return of the goods as per the decision of this Court on this aspect and the provision contained in rule 5B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. But, the assessee submitted that the goods which were returned in the assessment year 1975-76 were sold in the assessment year 1976-77. The goods are liable to tax at single point. Therefore, it was submitted that the sale turnover of the same goods cannot be taxed once again in the assessment year 1976-77. This plea put forward by the assessee is acceptable in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1990 (78) STC 88 wherein on this aspect, this Court held as under: "One more important factor is, that the goods returned as a result of unfructified sales and taken delivery of by the appellant were sold again, and the Revenue has collected tax on that. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, that was squarely met by the Board of Revenue in its order, except stating that the assessee has to be blamed for the same. In any event, the Revenue is not entitled to get the tax collected twice on the same goods while the goods are exigible, to tax on a single point. But we may make it clear that we are not basing our decision on this ground alone. In any event, the Revenue is not entitled to get the tax collected twice on the same goods while the goods are exigible, to tax on a single point. But we may make it clear that we are not basing our decision on this ground alone. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court, the turnover in question represents the unfructified sales and, therefore, the tax paid on those "unfructified sales" is liable to be returned, and the rejection on the ground that the claim was not made in time treating the same as 'sales returns', cannot be sustained." Thus, inasmuch as the goods sold in the year 1976-77 is taxable at single point and inasmuch as the same goods were taxed in the assessment year 1975-76, the plea put forward by the assessee for deduction on the turnover of Rs. 23, 731 at 8 per cent. and of Rs. 3, 004 at 5 1/2 per cent. from the turnover assessed to tax in the assessment year 1976-77 is acceptable, especially in view of the above cited decision of this Court. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim put forward by the assessee in this regard. 5. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. No costs.