These Civil Rules involve common questions of law and similar facts, therefore, I propose to dispose of all the Civil Rules by a common judgment. 2. All the above Civil Rules have been filed by the petitioner-company, Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., challenging the order of the assessment made under section 11(3) of the Assam (Sales of Petroleum & Petroleum Products including Motor Spirits and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1955 (for short the Taxation Act, 1955) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in connection with various period of assessments. The petitioner-company also challenged the common order dated 16.11.93 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam in revisions filed by the petitioner-company, which were dismissed by the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes by the aforesaid order held that the amount received by the petitioner-company from the Oil Co-ordination Committee was a part of total sale price in respect of sale of products and not subsidy or compensation and thereby the Commissioner of Taxes upheld the orders of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes,. Petitioner-company has also challenged the notice of demand issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, levying tax on the amount received by it from the Pool Account of the Oil Co-ordination Committee. 3. "Facts of the cases are: the petitioner is a company with limited liability. It is a Government of India undertaking, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The company is engaged in the refining crude oil and manufacturing of petroleum products. The company is a registered dealer under the Taxation Act, 1955 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, the prices of petroleum products are fixed by the Government of India on the basis of recommendation of the Oil Price Committee set up by the Government of India. The said Committee after considering various aspects, submitted its report fixing the retention price of refinery products. The formula for fixing the retention price of refinery products as recommended by the Oil Price Committee is as follows : "(a) The Committee determined the total refinery cost of refinery. The said Committee after considering various aspects, submitted its report fixing the retention price of refinery products. The formula for fixing the retention price of refinery products as recommended by the Oil Price Committee is as follows : "(a) The Committee determined the total refinery cost of refinery. (b) The Committee worked out the retention prices for each product and for each refinery, taking into account the average level of throughout, the standard pattern or production, the relevant cost of crude oil, the average refining cost, a fixed percentage of return on capital employed and a set of indices for allocation of the total cost of each refinery among different products. (c) OPC recommended an ex-refinery price at a particular level of production which is-equal to the weighed average retentions prices for all refineries. (d) For any incremental crude throughout of the refinery over the standard throughout, the refinery should get the incremental refinery cost together with the return on working capital." 4. The petitioner further states that the Oil Price Committee in its report stated that the retention prices had been calculated on the basis of standard production patterns and any variation from the standard production pattern would have an impact on the financial viability of the refinery. The Committee further recommended that the refineries would be compensated by adjustment in Pool Account for any shortfall in realisation due to variation from the standard production pattern on various reasons. Similarly, the Committee also recommended that the refinery should give any surplus to the Pool Account, if the production pattern given by the Government had a favourable effect on realisation. The Oil Price Committee recommended for setting up of an Oil Co- ordination Committee for management of the Pool Account for administrative matters. 5. The petitioner company used to submit return of turnover before the Superintendent of Taxes as per the assessment and also paid taxes. The petitioner-company's petroleum products have been marketed by the Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd at the prices fixed by the Government of India, which is the all India selling price. 5. The petitioner company used to submit return of turnover before the Superintendent of Taxes as per the assessment and also paid taxes. The petitioner-company's petroleum products have been marketed by the Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd at the prices fixed by the Government of India, which is the all India selling price. The petitioner company was served with notices, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Bongaigaon to show cause as to why tax should not be levied on the difference of amount between the retention price and ex-refinery price received by the petitioner company from Pool Account maintained by the Oil Co-ordination Committee in respect of sale of refinery products. Petitioner showed cause and also appeared before the Superintendent of Taxes through its representatives. Petitioner submitted that the amount received from the Pool Account maintained by the Oil Co-ordination Committee did not form part of the sale price and therefore, the said amount could not form part of turnover and accordingly, no tax was leviable on the said amount. There were various correspondences between the petitioner company and the Superintendent of Taxes. Documents were also placed before the Superintendent of Taxes to show that the amount received by the petitioner-company from the Pool Account was not a part of sale price. It was contended by the petitioner-company that the amount received by the company from the Pool Account was in the nature of subsidy or compensation. The contention of the petitioner-company was not accepted by the Superintendent of Taxes and he completed the assessment. In the said assessment, the Superintendent of Taxes included the amount received from the Pool Account by the petitioner company as taxable turnover and accordingly levied taxes thereon. Pursuant to the said assessment orders demand notices had also been served on the petitioner-company. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company on 7.2.93 filed revisions as per provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Taxation Act, 1955 and section 31 (2) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before the Commissioner of Taxes. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company on 7.2.93 filed revisions as per provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Taxation Act, 1955 and section 31 (2) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes by the impugned order dated 16.11.93 dismissed the revisions holding, inter alia, that the amount received from the Oil Co-ordination Committee was neither subsidy not compensation but a part of sale proceeds in respect of sale of refinery products made by the petitioner company, and therefore, the Commissioner of Taxes upheld the order of assessments. 7. I heard both sides. Dr. AK Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company submitted that the respondents were not justified in including the amount received from the Oil Co-ordination Committee as part of turnover inasmuch as the said amount formed part of sale price. He further submitted that the respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in including the said amount as a part of sale price. According to Dr. Saraf the amount received from the Oil Co-ordination Committee was only a subsidy or compensation, therefore, it could not form part of the turnover. The whole procedure of the contribution to the Pool Account and the receipt from the Pool Account being in the interest of petroleum industry, the same could not be treated as a part of the sale price. The creation of Pool Account and distribution of the amount was for the better management of the various oil refineries. Mr. DN Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the action of the respondents. While supporting the action of the respondents Mr. Chowdhury submitted that the amount received from the Pool Account was nothing but a part of 'sale proceed', therefore, this also forms a part of turnover and it was to be included while making the order assessment of taxes. 8. Now the question falls for determination is whether the amount received from the Pool Account by the petitioner-company should be treated as a part of sale price and should form part of turnover. Before dealing with the matter it will be apposite to consider some of the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1955. 8. Now the question falls for determination is whether the amount received from the Pool Account by the petitioner-company should be treated as a part of sale price and should form part of turnover. Before dealing with the matter it will be apposite to consider some of the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1955. At the material time the Taxation Act, 1955 was in force and the provisions of the said Act were applicable in the present case. However, this Act has been repealed by the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 as per section 74 (3) of the Act. The expression 'sale' has been defined under sub-section (10) of section 2 of the Taxation Act, 1955, which I quote : " 'Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any . However, this Act has been repealed by the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 as per section 74 (3) of the Act. The expression 'sale' has been defined under sub-section (10) of section 2 of the Taxation Act, 1955, which I quote : " 'Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any . transfer of property in goods by any person for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration: Provided that any shortage in excess of one per centurm of the quantities of motor spirit received into stock by a dealer for sale shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be a sale for purposes of this Act." 'Sale price' has been defined in sub-section (10A) of section 2, which I quote: " 'Sale price' used in relation to any dealer means the amount of money consideration for sale of taxable goods iess any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but including any sum charged for containers or other materials used in packing of such goods." Turnover' has been defined in sub-section (11 A) of section 2 of the Taxation Act, 1955, which I quote : " 'Turnover' used in relation to any period means the aggregate of the sale price or parts of sale prices recoverable by a dealer during such period after deducting; (i) the amount, if any, refunded by him in respect of any taxable goods and their containers returned by purchasers within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods, (ii) from the resultant balance an amount arrived at by applying the following formula: Rate of Tax x Resultant balance as mentioned above 100 plus rate of tax Explanation : Where the turnover of a dealer is taxable at different rates, the aforesaid formula shall be applied separately in respect of each part of the turnover liable to a different rate of tax." 'Sale price' used in relation to any dealer means the amount of money consideration for sale of taxable goods less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice. Therefore, whatever amount receivable by seller from a purchaser will be the 'sale price'. In other words, the amount received by a seller under a contract or agreement or under any provisions of statute or under a Controlled Order shall be the 'sale price'. Therefore, whatever amount receivable by seller from a purchaser will be the 'sale price'. In other words, the amount received by a seller under a contract or agreement or under any provisions of statute or under a Controlled Order shall be the 'sale price'. As per section 3 of the Taxation Act, 1955, tax levied and collected from every dealer on his turnover from sales of goods mentioned therein. 'Turnover' means the aggregate of the sale prices or parts of sale prices recoverable by a dealer during such period after deducting the amount mentioned in sub-section (11A) (i) and (ii). Similar provisions are incorporated in Central Sales Tax Act also. 9. In the present case the seller cannot command the price from the purchaser on its own. It is completely dependent oh the price fixed by the Government of India. Therefore, in the present case, 'sale price' is fixed by the Government of India and the seller on its own cannot demand any price even if the purchaser is willing to pay. This fixation of petroleum price by the Government of India was likely to put some of the manufacturers of the petroleum products in hardship in view of the fact that the cost of production of those products may be more than the price fixed by the Government. Therefore, the Government of India has made a scheme for creation of Pool Account with a view to compensating those refineries for any shortfall in realisation of the actual cost due to variation of standard production pattern owing to specific directive given by the Government. This was made which a view to lowering the price of petroleum product. Creation of a Pool Account was to compensate to those refineries whose cost of production were higher and thereby to prevent the refineries from closing down. As per the said scheme all the refineries were to receive transfer price either through sale proceeds of from the Pool Account'. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company was that as the amount received from Pool Account was only in the form of subsidy and/or compensation to compensate the loss because of the high cost of production the said amount cannot be said as 'sale price', therefore, it could not form part of the turnover. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company was that as the amount received from Pool Account was only in the form of subsidy and/or compensation to compensate the loss because of the high cost of production the said amount cannot be said as 'sale price', therefore, it could not form part of the turnover. Therefore, as per the price control policy the seller was not entitled to receive any amount other than the amount fixed. 10. In this connection some decisions had been cited by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. In Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd vs. State of Raj as than & others, Vol 43 STC 13, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the meaning of 'sale price'. The sale of cement was controlled by the Cement Control Order, 1967. The said Cement Control Order contained certain provisions the object of which was to make cement available throughout the country at a uniform price and this was achieved by providing that the producer should handover to the Controller the excess of the "free on rail destination railway station" price including selling agency commission, packing charges and excise duty realised by him over the retention price, selling agency commission, packing charges and excise duty and he should then be reimbursed the amount of expenditure actually incurred by him on freight by the cheapest mode of transport. One of the terms and conditions of supply was that the price of cement eventhough on the basis of f.o.r. destination railway station, consignments will nevertheless be despatched 'freight to pay'. The question was as to whether the freight forms part of 'sale price'. The Supreme Court held thus : "... The scheme of the Control Order clearly proceeds on the basis that the freight is payable by the producer and he recovers it from the purchaser as part of the f.o.r. destination railway station price. The provisions in the contract that the delivery to the purchaser shall be complete as soon as the goods are put on rail and payment of the freight shall be the responsibility of the purchaser is wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Control Order and must be held to be excluded by it. The provisions in the contract that the delivery to the purchaser shall be complete as soon as the goods are put on rail and payment of the freight shall be the responsibility of the purchaser is wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Control Order and must be held to be excluded by it. The Control Order is paramount; it has overriding effect and it is stipulates that the freight shall be payable by the producer, such stipulation must prevail, notwithstanding any term or condition of the contract to the contrary. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that the amount of freight forms part of the 'sale price' within the meaning of the first part of the definition." Again in Ramco Cement Distripution Co Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Vol 88 STC 151 (SC), the Supreme Court followed the decision of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) held thus : "... We have heard learned counsel on both sides and we do not find any reason to doubt or dissent from the decision in the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd... On the other hand, as pointed out by the learned Judges in that case, the whole purpose of me Cement Control Order was that cement should be available for sale at all places in the country at a controlled price. No doubt, the price was described as a maximum beyond which the sale price could not go but the intention, which was also carried out by all the suppliers, was that cement was to be sold at what may be described as a controlled price on terms "free on rail destination" In other words, the producer was entitled to the controlled rice irrespective of the amount of freight which might have been incurred in respect of the transaction. Having regard to the fact that places far away from the factories could show a lot of variation, the Control Order created a machinery by which all freight charges were credited to a common account and any particular cement manufacturer incurring more than a specified amount was entitled to be reimbursed for the excess freight incurred by him. Having regard to the fact that places far away from the factories could show a lot of variation, the Control Order created a machinery by which all freight charges were credited to a common account and any particular cement manufacturer incurring more than a specified amount was entitled to be reimbursed for the excess freight incurred by him. As the learned Judges pointed out in the earlier decision, the whole Control Order proceeds on the footing mat the freight charge: are to be met by the producer and that he was entitled to a consolidated price irrespective of the freight he may have incurred. In mis view of the matter, the sale price, on me terms of the Central Sales Tax Act, could only be the controlled price as fixed by the Cement Control Order." In Central Wines vs. Special Tax Officer, Intelligence, Hyderabad I, Secunderabad, reported in Vol 49 STC 83, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had the occasion to deal with the point regarding 'sale price' and 'turnover'. In the said case question fell for consideration was whether the sales tax amount realized by the dealer in selling liquor could be included in arriving the total amount of turnover for assessing the sale price due from the seller under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act After consideration various decisions of Apex Court as well as other High Courts the Court held that the sales tax collected by the deafer from the purchasers in respect of liquor sold to them can be the validly computed as part of the taxable turnover. Their Lordships further held that the amount of tax specially shown in the bill as tax or collected by the dealer under a specific agreement makes no difference so long as it is collected by the seller for parting with the property in the goods sold by him. The above decision indicates that if the tax is also included as a consideration for transferring the goods it becomes a sale price and thus forms a part of taxable turnover. Again in another decision in State of AP vs. Ranka Cables Pvt Ltd, 78 STC 111, the same High Court dealt with the matter of advalorem excise (duty. The above decision indicates that if the tax is also included as a consideration for transferring the goods it becomes a sale price and thus forms a part of taxable turnover. Again in another decision in State of AP vs. Ranka Cables Pvt Ltd, 78 STC 111, the same High Court dealt with the matter of advalorem excise (duty. In the said case the respondent, a manufacturer of cables and other electrical equipments and one such supplier, issued bills for the goods supplied by it in which, after mentioning the price, it added excise duty ad valorem. At the end of the bills it deducted the very same amount of excise duty in view of the likely . reimbursement under the Supplementary Cash Assistance Scheme. The matter came before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the excise duty did not form part of the sale price and therefore could not be included in the respondent's turnover for purposes of sales tax. Revision was filed against the decision of the Tribunal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The revision was dismissed holding that the said Scheme was evolved by the Central Government in the larger interests of industry and commerce and not merely or exclusively with a view to help the purchaser of electrical goods from the assessee and thus the findings of the Tribunal was held to be correct. Again in another decision in Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad & others Vol 83 SIC 129, the said High Court held that the subsidy received from Central Government through manufacture could not be treated as a part of turnover within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, especially when the assessment order itself showed that the transactions were covered by bills as required by the statutory provisions and no amount had been paid on behalf of the purchaser nor any amount collected by the dealer in excess of the price mentioned in the bill. This view is reiterated in a later decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. vs. ITR(OFA)Pujagutta, Vol 85 STC 552, wherein also the Court held that the subsidy cannot form part of the turnover. The Kerala High Court in Madras Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle II, Agrl. This view is reiterated in a later decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. vs. ITR(OFA)Pujagutta, Vol 85 STC 552, wherein also the Court held that the subsidy cannot form part of the turnover. The Kerala High Court in Madras Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle II, Agrl. Income Tax and Sales Tax Deptt, Ernakulam & others, Vol 95 STC 134 took a similar view in respect of whose retention price was higher. In the said decision the Kerala High Court held thus : "10. The uniform strand of meaning which runs through all these definitions of subsidy is that it is a grant made by the Government to an enterprise, inter alia, for the good or benefit of the public. One of its objects is the keeping down of prices of commodities. Benefit to the public is eventually the motivating factor for the grant of the subsidy. The question is whether such a grant could be treated as part of the price paid for the sale of products and can therefore form part of the turnover of the dealer liable to be taxed as such in his hands. 11. Sale is a bilateral transaction which stems out of a contract between the seller and the purchaser. An essential ingredient of a sale is 'price'. Fixation of the price is a matter of agreement between the parties. Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1932 provides that the price in a contract of sale may be fixed by the contract, or may be left to be fixed in a manner thereby agreed, or may be determined by the course of dealing between the parties. In cases where the parties is not determined in accordance with these, provisions, the buyer shall pay the seller a reasonable price. Therefore, price is an essential element of a contract of sale and is ordinarily a matter of agreement between the parties. What the purchaser of the fertiliser bargains when he purchases fertiliser from the petitioners is to obtain a certain quantity of fertilisers at a certain price which shall not exceed the price fixed by the Central Government by notification under the Fertiliser (Control) Order. The sale is not conditional on the Central Government paying any amount by way of subsidy. What the purchaser of the fertiliser bargains when he purchases fertiliser from the petitioners is to obtain a certain quantity of fertilisers at a certain price which shall not exceed the price fixed by the Central Government by notification under the Fertiliser (Control) Order. The sale is not conditional on the Central Government paying any amount by way of subsidy. There is no agreement between the parties for any further amount to be paid, than what is paid by the purchaser at the time of the sale. 'Turnover' is defined in section 2 (xxvii) of the KGST Act as meaning the aggregate price for which goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer. 'Sale' is defined in section 2 (xxi) as meaning every transfer, whether in pursuance of a contract or not, of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or for other valuable consideration. The essential contract between the parties, namely, the seller arid the purchaser of fertilisers, is only for payment of the price subject to the maximum fixed by the Central Government and not for any other. This being the contract, any other sum received by the seller-petitioners for a different purpose and not as consideration for the sale, is not part of the sale price, and therefore of their turnover. The fact that the amount of subsidy is determined with reference to the quantum of fertilisers cleared from the factory on which considerable stress was made by the Government Pleader, does not lead to any inference that the payment is made in consideration of the sale. The retention price and the transfer price are fixed with reference to various factors. The subsidy is paid for the benefit of the public, to keep the prices at a reasonable level, and at the same time to ensure a reasonable return on investment to the units, and not as consideration for the sales effect by them. The retention price and the transfer price are fixed with reference to various factors. The subsidy is paid for the benefit of the public, to keep the prices at a reasonable level, and at the same time to ensure a reasonable return on investment to the units, and not as consideration for the sales effect by them. I am therefore of the view that the amount of subsidy received by the petitioners for the purpose of their units, which is not related to any particular transaction of sale, but is related to other circumstances, cannot constitute turnover in their hands assessable under the KGST Act." Again the Allahabad High Court in Natraj Organics Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax, Muzaffarnagar, Vol.96 STC 261, following the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Fertiliser Corporation of India (supra) and Coromondel Fertilisers Ltd (supra) held that the central subsidy received by a manufacturer of chemical fertilisers was not an amount received by him for which goods were supplied by him to customers by way of sale. Subsidy cannot, therefore, be included in the turnover for the purpose of levy of sales tax. 11. From the decisions cited above, the legal position is very clear. 'Sale Price' is the money consideration which the seller receives or receivable by agreement or by a Controlled Order or by any provisions of statute. If by a Controlled Order the Government fixes a price the seller is not entitled to receive more than the price fixed by the Government. If anything is given to the seller to compensate the loss that may occur for selling the goods at a controlled price or at a price fixed that cannot form a part of the 'sale price'. This is only a subsidy or compensation. This subsidy or compensation is not given to help the purchaser but to give some benefit to the manufacturer who may suffer loss by selling at the price fixed. 12. In the present cases in hand, the oil price was fixed by the Government of India oh the basis of recommendation of the Oil Price Committee and the Pool Account was created to compensate those refineries, whose retention price is higher than the sale price. Hence, I am of the opinion that the amount received by the refinery from the Pool Account cannot form part of the 'sale price' and also the 'turnover'. Hence, I am of the opinion that the amount received by the refinery from the Pool Account cannot form part of the 'sale price' and also the 'turnover'. Therefore, the Superintendent of Taxes had no right or jurisdiction to levy tax on the amount received from the Pool Account. In view of the above, the orders of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and the consolidated order dated 16.11.93 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of assessment and the consolidated order dated 16.11.93 passed by the respondents, In the result, the petitions are allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, I make no order as to costs.