JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – All these tax revision cases are filed by M/s. Harrisons Crossfield Ltd., presently known as Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., against two common orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench II, Ernakulam, one in T.A. Nos. 149, 465, 151, 468, 397, 467, 469, 466, 150 and 152 of 1992 and the other in T.A. Nos. 422 of 1992, 6 of 1984 and 423 of 1986. T.R.C. Nos. 165, 168, 171 and 172 of 2002 arising from T.A. Nos. 468, 397, 467 and 469 of 1992 relate to Central Sales Tax assessments and the remaining tax revision cases relate to Kerala general sales tax assessments. C.S.T. assessment relates to the assessment years 1970-71, 1974-75, 1967-68 and 1971-72 respectively and K.G.S.T. assessment relates to the assessment years 1969-70, 1967-68, 1976-77, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1977-78 respectively. In all these cases the main issue involved is regarding the agency status claimed by the petitioner in respect of its transactions with M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. In the tax revision cases in respect of the assessment under the C.S.T. Act, in addition, there is another point regarding the claim for deduction of the sales return and trade discount. According to the petitioner the entire transactions in question both under the K.G.S.T. assessment and under the C.S.T. assessment are agency transactions effected by the petitioner on behalf of M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., for whom the petitioner was acting as the managing agent under an agreement dated May 13, 1948 executed between them w.e.f. April 1, 1948. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention and had treated the entire transaction between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., as one of sale and the respective turnovers were assessed either under the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 or under the C.S.T. Act, 1956 as the case may be. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. The claim made by the petitioner was allowed by the first appellate authority in respect of the assessment under the K.G.S.T. Act for the years 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1974-75. However, another Deputy Commissioner, who heard the appeals for the other years under the K.G.S.T. Act and appeals under the C.S.T. Act for the four years mentioned earlier did not allow such claims made by the petitioner. However, another Deputy Commissioner, who heard the appeals for the other years under the K.G.S.T. Act and appeals under the C.S.T. Act for the four years mentioned earlier did not allow such claims made by the petitioner. Thus both the assessee and the department filed appeals before the Tribunal against the respective appellate orders. As already noted, except in the three cases, T.R.C. Nos. 272, 333 and 334 of 2000 all other appeals were dismissed by a common judgment. The appeals which are the subject-matter of the three tax revision cases filed by the department was allowed. Thus the petitioner has filed revisions in all the 13 cases. Shri Jayasankar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner is not independently engaged in the business of purchase and sale of any goods and that the entire purchases of goods which have been delivered to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., were made in their capacity of agents under the managing agency agreement dated May 13, 1948 with effect from April 1, 1948. The counsel submitted that they had purchased goods only on receipt of requisition in that behalf from the plantations owned by M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., and the goods so purchased were made over to the respective estates by raising a debit note in which the petitioner had charged only the actual purchase price including sales tax collected by the suppliers + 2.5 per cent buying commission and packing and loading charges. In short the submission of the counsel is that the petitioner had not charged any additional sum by way of profit. The counsel took us to the various clauses in the managing agency agreement particularly clauses 2(b), 2(d), 16, 18 and item 3 of the schedule to the agreement and submitted that the entire transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., under consideration are mere agency transactions and that the petitioner had collected only 2.5 per cent commission on such transactions as provided under item 3 of the schedule to the agreement. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner had produced copies of the purchase orders, sale bills, debit notes and other correspondence in regard to the transactions in question before the authorities and the Tribunal and that the Tribunal had erroneously come to the conclusion that those documents also would show that the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., are independent sale transactions. The counsel further submitted the Tribunal, with reference to clause 16 of the agreement, had erroneously taken the view that the managing agency agreement contemplated both agency transactions and independent sales between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations and that the transactions in question fell under latter category. This view was taken by the Tribunal, according to the counsel, relying on the first limb of clause 16 of the agreement in respect of transactions covered by the said limb : The counsel also submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the issue in question under the second and third limb of clause 16 of the agreement. The point for decision is whether there is a sale in the first category of transactions mentioned in clause 16 where the petitioner purchases the goods for the company and supplies the goods to the company. The Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the appellate order held that reading the caption given to clause 16 along with the latter two limbs of clause 16 and clause 2(b) appointing the petitioner as buying agent for the goods purchased by the company will lead only to the conclusion that the transactions mentioned in the first category of the transactions is only a contract for purchase and sale and not a contract of agency. The counsel submitted that this finding of the Tribunal is not supported by any evidence and that the evidence produced by the petitioner will establish to the contrary. Counsel also submitted that all the debit notes produced by the petitioner in respect of the transactions in question would show that the petitioner had charged commission from which it would be clear that the transaction is covered by the first limb of clause 16 of the agreement. The counsel in short submitted that going by the provisions in the agency agreement and by the documents produced by the petitioner the conclusion can be only one way, i.e., to the effect that the transactions in question are agency transactions only. The counsel in short submitted that going by the provisions in the agency agreement and by the documents produced by the petitioner the conclusion can be only one way, i.e., to the effect that the transactions in question are agency transactions only. Counsel in support of his contention regarding the principles governing the relationship between the principal and agent had relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Mysore Chemical Supplies v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992] 84 STC 544 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Peninsular Traders v. Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law), Kerala [1998] 108 STC 575. The learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations are two distinct and different entities and that in the present case there are two transactions (1) purchase of goods by the assessee from various parties and (2) the sale of the said items by the petitioner to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. The Government pleader submits that as soon as the petitioner purchases goods from various dealers the title to such goods passed on to the petitioner and that it is only thereafter the petitioner had effected transfer of property in the goods to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., for consideration. He further submitted that in order to constitute a sale, it is not necessary that the selling dealer must sell the goods at a higher rate so as to provide for some profit also. The Government pleader further submitted that the intention of the parties are very clear from the agreement itself. He in support of the same relied on the side caption to clause 16 of the agreement. He submitted that though the agreement is one styled as a commission agreement in fact the intention of the parties was that the transactions in question should have the incidents of a sale. Government pleader also sought reliance on the explanation to the definition of "sale" under section 2(xxi) of the Act. The Government Pleader also pointed out that there is no stipulation in the agreement that the goods ordered to be purchased by the petitioner should be delivered within any time frame. Government pleader also sought reliance on the explanation to the definition of "sale" under section 2(xxi) of the Act. The Government Pleader also pointed out that there is no stipulation in the agreement that the goods ordered to be purchased by the petitioner should be delivered within any time frame. According to the Government Pleader the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., which are the subject-matter of these tax revision cases are nothing but outright sale by the petitioner in favour of M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. The Government pleader relied on clause 16 of the agreement in that regard. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the orders of the authorities including the Tribunal. As already stated, these revisions relate to various assessment years both under the K.G.S.T. Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. Of course, since the petitioner had placed some of the purchase orders for M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., the sale bills evidencing the purchases effected by the petitioner and debit notes raised by the petitioner and since the Tribunal had considered the question in the light of those documents also. We will consider the question in the light of those documents also. It is necessary to find out as to whether the agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., contemplates only agency transactions and also as to whether the transactions in question are consistent with the agency transactions pleaded by the petitioner. First we will deal with the clauses in the agency agreement (annexure-A in T.R.C. No. 145 of 2000) executed between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. Under clause 1 of the agreement it shall come into force on the first day of April, 1948 and the same will continue in force unless and until determined by either party giving to the other not less than three years notice in writing to determine the same. There is no case for the department that this agreement is not in force as on the relevant assessment years concerned. Clause 2 says that the agents shall act and the company shall employ the agents exclusively as - we are only concerned with sub-clauses (b) and (d) of this clause. There is no case for the department that this agreement is not in force as on the relevant assessment years concerned. Clause 2 says that the agents shall act and the company shall employ the agents exclusively as - we are only concerned with sub-clauses (b) and (d) of this clause. Clause (b) says that the "buying agents for all plant, machinery, utensils, goods and things purchased by the company (hereinafter referred to as 'goods') but subject to the provisions of clause 16 hereof" and clause (d) says that the local agents in India (hereinafter called "the said territory"). Clause 10 provides that the agents shall keep true accounts in London and in the East (a) of all advances made and all moneys paid to or on account of the company (b) of all commission charges and interest accruing to or payable by the company (c) of all produce received by them (d) of the proceeds realised by the sale thereof and (e) of all purchases made by them on behalf of the company. Clause 10, inter alia, provides that agents shall keep accounts ....... of all commission charges and interest accruing to or payable by the company ........... and of all purchases made by them on behalf of the company. Clause 13 provides for remuneration for their services. It is stated that the agents shall be entitled to the fees and charges set out in the schedule hereto. Clause 15 provides that the agent shall in addition to such remuneration be repaid all godown rent, freights, insurances, duties, harbour and wharfage dues, commissions, brokerages and charges incurred in the ordinary course of business and all travelling and out-of-pocket expenses which may be incurred by them or their employees in the performance of the company's business. Clause 16 is more relevant and crucial for the purpose of these cases, which reads as follows : "The agents shall procure for the company the benefit of all discounts, rebates and allowances obtainable on goods purchased for the company, but they shall be entitled to receive and retain in respect of such purchases all commissions payable to them as the duly appointed agents of the suppliers or manufacturers if the agents have previously given notice to the company that they hold such agency appointments. Provided always that, where it is customary to purchase the goods locally or owing to urgency or to any other reason the agents deem it in the interests of the company to do so, the agents may act as principals in the sale of goods to the company at prices not greater than the current prices of the goods at the place of sale in which cases no buying commission shall be payable to them. Provided also that, if at any time the company or its estate managers shall be able to make purchases direct upon terms more advantageous than can be obtained through the agents as buying agents or from them as principals, the company may do so but no such purchases shall be made without the opportunity first being given to the agents to do the business." It is also necessary to note the side caption of clause 16 which reads "Discount and Commissions on Purchases by Company". Item No. 3 of the schedule referred to the services and remunerations contemplated under clause 13. Item No. 3 which is the only relevant portion so far as the transactions in question is concerned reads - "Buying agency. For buying as agents for the company - Two and a half per cent on the C.I.F. prices". From a reading of the aforesaid provisions occurring in the agency agreement executed between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., it would appear that in respect of purchase of goods effected by the petitioner on behalf of M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., covered by the agreement the petitioner is entitled to a commission specified in item No. 3 of the schedule at the rate of 2.5 per cent. The question for consideration is as to whether the transactions in question can be treated as agency transactions covered by the agreement. For the said purpose, it is necessary to go a little deep into the clauses already referred. Clause 2 of the agency agreement provides that the petitioner shall act and the company shall employ the agents exclusively as buying agents for all plant, machinery, utensils, goods and things purchased by the company but subject to the provisions of clause 16. Clause 16 provides that the agent shall procure for the company the benefit of all discounts, rebates and allowances obtainable on goods purchased for the company. Clause 16 provides that the agent shall procure for the company the benefit of all discounts, rebates and allowances obtainable on goods purchased for the company. It is also provided that the agents shall be entitled to receive and retain in respect of such purchases all commissions payable to them as the duly appointed agents of the suppliers or manufacturers if the agents have previously given notice to the company that they hold such agency appointments. From this portion of clause 16 it would appear that there is an obligation on the part of the petitioner to negotiate with parties from whom the petitioner purchases the goods on behalf of the company and to pass on the benefits by way of discount, rebate and allowances obtained on goods purchased for the benefit of the company. The proviso to clause 16 states that where it is customary to purchase the goods locally or owing to urgency or to any other reason the agents deem it in the interests of the company to do so, the agents may act as principals in the sale of goods to the company at prices not greater than the current prices of the goods at the place of sale. In such cases, the petitioner will not be entitled to any buying commission. Clause 16 further provides that if at any time the company or its estate managers shall be able to make purchases direct upon terms more advantageous than can be obtained through the agents as buying agents or from them as principals, the company may do so but no such purchases shall be made without the opportunity first being given to the agents to do the business. The first proviso to clause 16 deals with a situation of purchasing goods locally or owing to urgency or to any other reason. In such a case it is provided that they may act as principals in the sale of goods to the company at prices not greater than the prices of the goods at the place of sale. In such situation the petitioner will not be entitled to any commission. The word "locally" used in the said proviso if it is understood in the context read along with clause 2(d) it would appear that the word local would mean the purchases made all over India. In such situation the petitioner will not be entitled to any commission. The word "locally" used in the said proviso if it is understood in the context read along with clause 2(d) it would appear that the word local would mean the purchases made all over India. The second proviso also deals with a situation where M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., or its estate managers can also resort to direct purchases but after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to purchase goods and sell the same to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., subjecting the same at prices not greater than the prices at which the company can purchase from the market. Thus, clause 16 clearly posit a situation of outright purchases by M/s. Malayalam Plantations from the petitioner in the circumstances mentioned therein. True, in such situation the petitioner will not be entitled to the commission provided under the schedule. Thus, reading clause 2(b) along with clause 16 it cannot be said that the agreement is one of agency alone and therefore it is for the petitioner to establish that it had acted only as agent for M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., in respect of purchases made by the petitioner. In other words, it is only the purchases made by the petitioner as agents are covered by the main part of clause 16. Though the Tribunal after considering the various limbs of clause 16 said that the agency transaction would not apply to the transactions covered by the two provisos, considering the main part of clause 16 it held that the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., are independent transactions. The reason stated by the Tribunal for holding so is contained in paragraph 11 of the Tribunal's order. It reads as follows : "The alleged agency arrangement is spelt out in the agency agreement in a single sentence. It only says that when the appellant purchases the goods for the company, the appellant shall transfer the benefit of all discounts, rebates and other allowances obtainable on such purchases of goods to the company. At the same time appellant is allowed to retain the Commission if any payable to the appellant by the suppliers. Nothing more is stated regarding the buying agency. The side caption given against clause 16 is worthy to note at this juncture. It reads as 'Discounts and Commission on purchases by Company'. At the same time appellant is allowed to retain the Commission if any payable to the appellant by the suppliers. Nothing more is stated regarding the buying agency. The side caption given against clause 16 is worthy to note at this juncture. It reads as 'Discounts and Commission on purchases by Company'. We have found that the second and third category of transactions mentioned in this clause are direct sales and discounts and commissions have no application to those transactions. It is in the first category of transaction discounts, rebates and Commissions are mentioned. So the side caption relates to the first category of transactions only. It can be noted that the parties to the agreement themselves have described the transactions as purchases by the Company. The intention of the parties to the agreement as evident from the caption given to this clause, therefore, was to treat the transaction as purchase and sale and not as agency transactions. Reading this portion along with the other two types of transactions mentioned in clause 16 and the clause 2(b) appointing the appellant as buying agent for the goods purchased by the Company will also lead only to the conclusion that the transaction mentioned in the first category of transactions is only a contract for purchase and sale and not a contract of agency." From the above it would appear that the Tribunal had given emphasis to the side caption given to clause 16, viz., discounts and commissions on purchases by company. When clause 2(b) which appoints the petitioner as agent of the company subject to clause 16, it may appear that what is contained in clause 16 is an exception to the agency transaction. However, when the petitioner had contended that the transactions in question are pure agency transactions covered by the agreement and when the petitioner has produced the entire correspondence between M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., and the petitioner and the purchase bills, certainly it is a matter to be considered by the Tribunal to test whether the actual transactions between the parties are consistent with the terms of the agreement. Here we find that the Tribunal has considered the various documents produced by the petitioner in paragraphs 12 to 16 of the appellate order. Here we find that the Tribunal has considered the various documents produced by the petitioner in paragraphs 12 to 16 of the appellate order. It is seen that M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., has sent a communication to the petitioner requesting the latter to arrange to supply as soon as possible two numbers full size carrom boards complete with coins for this estate's Labour clubs. On receiving the communication the petitioner within a week placed a purchase order with M/s. Cochin All Sports, Ernakulam, requesting for supply of two numbers fullsize carrom boards complete with coins at the rate of Rs. 45 each and the delivery was required as soon as possible and to deliver the same to the bearer. M/s. Cochin All Sports in turn supplied the goods to the petitioner as per their invoice dated October 6, 1971 itself charging Rs. 45 each and 3 per cent sales tax amounting to Rs. 2.70 totalling Rs. 92.70. The petitioner in turn supplied the goods to the company as per its invoice/delivery note dated October 6, 1971 itself which shows that the petitioner collected Rs. 99.22 made up of Rs. 92.70 + 2.5 per cent BC, i.e., Rs. 2.32 and the packing and loading charges Rs. 4.20. The Tribunal itself has noted that the other transactions are also of similar in nature. The Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner has placed orders with suppliers for purchase of goods which were required for M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., as if it is for the petitioner and the suppliers have sold the goods to the petitioner without any reference to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. It was also observed that the petitioner then supplied the goods for a higher price to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., are independent transactions. According to us, the approach made by the Tribunal in deciding the issue does not appear to be correct. Clause 2(b) in the agreement clearly provides that the petitioner is appointed as agent of M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., inter alia, for the purpose of purchase of goods and things by the company. Ordinarily, when the principal, viz., M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., places an order the petitioner is obliged to purchase the goods ordered by the principal in the name of the principal. Ordinarily, when the principal, viz., M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., places an order the petitioner is obliged to purchase the goods ordered by the principal in the name of the principal. In the instant case, the petitioner has purchased the goods in its own name. The appointment of the petitioner as buying agent, as already noted, is subject to clause 16. We have already noted that clause 16 comprised of the main part and two provisos. Under the main part of clause 16, the agent is obliged to get for the company the benefit of all discounts, rebates and allowances obtainable on goods purchased for the company which prima facie would indicate that the petitioner should disclose to the seller that the goods are being purchased for the principal, viz., M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. There is no case that the purchases were effected by disclosing the same to the principal. There is also nothing to show that in respect of various purchases effected there was any negotiation for getting discount, rebates and allowances. The proviso also enables the petitioner to effect local direct purchases and to sell the same to M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. In this context, it is also pertinent to refer to item No. 3 of the schedule providing for commission. It indicates that the commission is geared to 2.5 per cent on the C.I.F. prices. From this it would appear that the petitioner is entitled to commission only on transactions of the nature of C.I.F. contract purchases. In other words, agency transaction is contemplated only in respect of inter-State or out-side purchases and not in respect of local purchases. This aspect of the matter which has got a very great significance in deciding the question as to whether the transactions in dispute are agency transactions. This aspect of the matter is not seen considered by any of the authorities including the Tribunal. According to us, while considering the question as to whether the transaction in question is agency transaction, one of the relevant considerations is the commission item. This aspect of the matter is not seen considered by any of the authorities including the Tribunal. According to us, while considering the question as to whether the transaction in question is agency transaction, one of the relevant considerations is the commission item. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Tribunal did not have a case apart from the fact that the side caption read with the main part of clause 16 depicts an out-right transaction between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., it is not open to the petitioner or for this Court to refer to or rely on any other clauses in the agreement or in the schedule to adjudicate the controversy in the absence of any challenge by the department. In short, the counsel submitted that the only issue to be considered by this Court is as to whether the transaction in question can be brought to tax by relying on the main part of clause 16 read with side caption. We are unable to accept the said submission of the counsel for the petitioner. We are concerned in this case with regard to the exigibility to tax under the K.G.S.T. Act/C.S.T. Act on the transactions in question. The said question has to be decided on a consideration of the clauses in the agency agreement and the conduct of the parties evidenced by the correspondence produced by the petitioner. In those circumstances, according to us, item No. 3 of the schedule which provides for remuneration which in turn is geared to the C.I.F. price is also relevant. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the orders of the assessing authority as well as the two appellate authorities on this question cannot be sustained. We are also of the view that the assessing authority must be directed to consider this question in the light of the agreement and correspondence between the petitioner, the supplier and M/s. Malayalam Plantations which we have already adverted to. In this context it is also relevant to refer to the provisions of Explanation 5 of Section 2(xxi) of the Act. The said Explanation reads as follows : "Explanation 5. In this context it is also relevant to refer to the provisions of Explanation 5 of Section 2(xxi) of the Act. The said Explanation reads as follows : "Explanation 5. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, two independent sales or purchases shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have taken place, - (a) when the goods are transferred from a principal to his selling agent and from the selling agent to the purchaser; or (b) when the goods are transferred from the seller to a buying agent and from the buying agent to his principal, if the agent is found in either of the cases aforesaid; (i) to have sold the goods at one rate and to have passed on the sale proceeds to his principal, at another rate; or (ii) to have purchased the goods at one rate and to have passed them on to his principal at another rate; or (iii) not to have accounted to his principal for the entire collections or deductions made by him in the sales of purchases effected by him on behalf of his principal; or (iv) to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent principal : Provided that the deduction or addition, as the case may be, of the commission agreed upon and specified in the accounts and incidental charges incurred by the agent which are specified in the accounts and which the assessing authority considers legitimate shall not be deemed to be a difference in the rates referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (ii)." Under the said Explanation two independent sales or purchases shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have taken place - (a) when the goods are transferred from a principal to his selling agent and from the selling agent to the purchaser; or (b) when the goods are transferred from the seller to a buying agent and from the buying agent to his principal, if the agent is found in either of the cases aforesaid, (i) to have sold the goods at one rate and to have passed on the sale proceeds to his principal, at another rate, or (ii) to have purchased the goods at one rate and to have passed them on to his principal at another rate, or (iii) not to have accounted to his principal for the entire collections or deductions made by him in the sales or purchases effected by him on behalf of his principal; or (iv) to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent principal. Proviso thereto says that deduction or addition, as the case may be, of the commission agreed upon and specified in the accounts and incidental charges incurred by the agent which are specified in the accounts and which the assessing authority considers legitimate shall not be deemed to be a difference in the rates referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (ii). According to us, these provisions are also relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the question in this case. The assessing authority while deciding the question will consider the applicability of the provisions of Explanation 5 of section 2(xxi) of the Act also. We accordingly set aside the orders of the two appellate authorities on this point and direct the assessing authority to consider the claim of agency status in respect of the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., in the light of the agreement (annexure I) particularly clauses 2(b), 13 and 16 thereof and the correspondents, purchase bills, debit notes, etc., and also with reference to Explanation 5 of section 2(xxi) of the Act. Petitioner is free to rely on the decisions referred to in this judgment in support of its case. One other contention also arises in this case, i.e., with regard to the claim for deduction of the turnover of sales return or trade discount. These questions arise only in four cases that too in respect of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1967-68, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1974-75. Admittedly the petitioner did not claim deduction of the turnover of the sales return/trade discount before the assessing authority. However, the petitioner had made the said claim for the first time before the appellate authorities. They declined to consider the said claim on the ground that the petitioner had not made the claim initially before the assessing authority for the assessment years concerned. The contention of the petitioner before the appellate authorities was that since the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the four years in question are pending in appeal, certainly the appellate authority can consider the said claim and if necessary can remit the matter to the assessing authority for consideration. However, this submission did not find favour with the two appellate authorities. However, this submission did not find favour with the two appellate authorities. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had satisfied the requirement for claiming the deduction of the sales return/sales discount in the respective assessment years it is open to the petitioner to make the claim for deduction at any stage of the proceedings. The counsel in support of the said contentions relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 229 ITR 383 and the decision of the Madras High Court in Wilson Industries v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 259 ITR 318. We have also heard the Government pleader on this point. He sought to sustain the order of the two appellate authorities on that point. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court. We find that the Supreme Court in a case where the assessee who did not make a claim for certain deductions available under the Income-tax Act either before the assessing officer or before the first appellate authority or in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for the first time by a letter addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal raised certain additional grounds stating that certain amount was wrongly included in the total income. The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to raise such a claim. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arose from the facts as found by the income-tax authorities and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. In view of the above, the two appellate authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim solely on the ground that such a claim was not made before the assessing authority for the relevant assessment years. Now that, we have remitted the matter to the assessing authority. We are of the view that this matter must also be considered by the assessing authority keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision. The assessing authority is accordingly directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for deduction of the turnover of sales return/trade discount afresh and to complete the assessment accordingly. All these revisions are disposed of as above. Petitions disposed of accordingly.