A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.: Being aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Chennai, in T.A.No.870 of 1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1988-1989, the Revenue filed Tax Case (Revision) No.147 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, and the same was allowed by an order dated 24.1.2002. The writ petitioner/assessee, questioning the said order, has filed Writ Petition No.6169 of 2002. Writ Petition No.6170 of 2002 is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C.(Appeal) No.40 of 1997, which in turn was filed by the assessee/petitioner, against the order of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chennai, in Reference No.M3/616/95. 2. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, disposed of the Tax Case (Revision) as well as the Tax Case (Appeal), by a Common Order dated 24.1.2002, since the issue involved in both the cases is common. 3. The case of the petitioner, as found in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.6169 of 2002), can be set out as under:The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with registered office at Hyderabad and having sales depot all over India, including the one at Chennai. The petitioner, who has registered itself as a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is a manufacturer of Asbestos cement sheets etc. The products of the petitioner are marketed by effecting sales to stockists and consumers directly. The petitioner entered into an agreement with its dealers, which contains various clauses and out of which, Clauses 4, 5, 8 to 10 and 19 would be relevant for the purpose of this case. Clause-8 stipulates that in case of products despatched by railway wagons/lorries railway freight/lorry freight shall be payable by the stockists and the amount of freight shown on railway receipt/lorry receipt and/or any other sum mutually agreed upon shall be deducted from the invoice of the Company. Clause 9 stipulates that the price of the said products supplied to the stockists shall be current general list price charged by the company Ex-works/Free on rail/on road less freight and discount if any. Clause 9 stipulates that the price of the said products supplied to the stockists shall be current general list price charged by the company Ex-works/Free on rail/on road less freight and discount if any. The wholesale price list, governing the sale of the petitioner’s products, also contains the terms and conditions, according to which, the prices in the said list are on F.O.R. Destination basis for supplies of minimum one wagon/lorry and that the amount of rail/lorry freight as shown in the RR/LR shall be payable by the purchaser at the destination and the same shall be deducted from the company’s invoice to arrive at the prices of the product. Thus, according to the petitioner, the sale of the products effected by it is an ex-factory/ex-depot sale with all the risk and responsibility ceasing on delivery of goods to the carrier. The price alone, being the F.O.R. Price, where the purchasers arrange for their own transport, or where the goods are sent on freight to pay basis, the price/cost of the product/goods (which is F.O.R. Price) is required to be reduced by the element of cost of transporation is built therein. Considering the fluctuating market conditions and the consequent transport charges from time to time, the petitioner evolved a scale of rate on the basis of distance in Kms., and per tonne basis to commensurate the transport charges. The rate of scale of transport charges evolved by the petitioner is informed to all the customers and wherever the customers arrange for their own transport, depending on the place of delivery and the distance of such place from the petitioner’s factory/depot, the applicable scale of rate is adopted and a deduction is given from the F.O.R. Price to arrive at Ex-factory sale price of the products and such deduction from the price of products is allowed to all customers arranging the mode of conveyance by themselves. The transport rebate as evolved by the petitioner on the basis of distance and tonnage by mutual agreement with the stockists is changed from time to time, whenever there is substantial changes in the transport rate in the market. Hence, the scale evolved by the petitioner cannot be said to be a notional amount but is in relation to the cost of transporation, if the goods are carried by the customer on his own, without the element of profit. Hence, the scale evolved by the petitioner cannot be said to be a notional amount but is in relation to the cost of transporation, if the goods are carried by the customer on his own, without the element of profit. The assessing authority, for the assessment year 1988-1989, determined the taxable turnover at Rs.1,86,36,922.49, as compared to the taxable turnover of Rs.1,80,90,025.87, reported by the petitioner in the returns filed. The difference between the taxable turnover determined by the Assessing Authority and the returns filed by the petitioner is to the extent of Rs.5,46,896.62 and according to the petitioner, the said sum represents deductions in various invoices during the assessment year, representing transport rebate allowed. The contention of the petitioner is that such rebate is not a part of the sale price and the deduction claim of transport rebate is separately shown and it is not part of the sale price. The Assessing Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner and re-determined taxable turnover by disallowing the claim of transport rebate and levied a penalty of Rs.54,689. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Madras, however, that was dismissed by an order dated 6.9.1991. The petitioner filed further appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in T.A.No.870 of 1993 and the 2nd respondent/Tribunal held that the ‘transport rebate’ or freight charges never formed part of the sale price of the goods sold and deleted the addition of the amount representing transport charges from the taxable turnover. The penalty imposed on the petitioner was also deleted. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, in T.A.No.870 of 1993 dated 28.3.1994, filed a Revision under Sec.38 of the Act before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal viz., the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent allowed the Tax Case (Revision) filed by the Revenue holding that the transport rebate allowed or freight charges allowed are to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee in terms of Sec.2(q) and Sec.2(p) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The said order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, which is dated 24.1.2002, is challenged in Writ Petition No.6169 of 2002. 4. The said order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, which is dated 24.1.2002, is challenged in Writ Petition No.6169 of 2002. 4. For the subsequent assessment year i.e., 1990-1991, the assessing authority determined the taxable turnover at Rs.3,26,33,556.47 as compared to the taxable turnover of Rs.3,17,34,735.84 reported by the petitioner in the returns filed, based on its books of accounts. The difference in the taxable turnover being Rs.9,02,497.24, according to the petitioner, the same represents the deductions in various invoices during that assessment year, representing the transport rebate allowed. The Assessing Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner and re-determined the taxable turnover by disallowing the claim of transport rebate and also levied a penalty of Rs.90,250. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Madras, which was allowed by an order dated 5.8.1994. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while passing the said order, accepted the contention of the petitioner and followed the decision of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was rendered in T.A.No.870 of 1993 dated 28.3.1994 in the petitioner’s own case relating to the earlier assessment year viz., 1988-1989. The 2nd respondent herein, in exercise of the revisionary powers conferred under the Act, issued a show cause notice, proposing to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the original order, disallowing the claim of the transport rebate made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objection dated 3.11.1995 to the proposed suo motu revision proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 1990-1991. However, the 2nd respondent did not accept the submissions put forth by the petitioner against the proposed Revision and by his order dated 16.4.1996, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Assessing Authority, disallowing the claim of deduction of transport rebate. This prompted the assessee to file Tax Case (Appeal) No.40 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. 5. As already stated, the above writ petitions have been filed by the assessee, questioning the correctness of the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai. 6. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee reiterated the submissions already made before the Taxation Special Tribunal so also before the respondents 1 and 2. 5. As already stated, the above writ petitions have been filed by the assessee, questioning the correctness of the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai. 6. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee reiterated the submissions already made before the Taxation Special Tribunal so also before the respondents 1 and 2. The sum and substances of the contention is that the freight charges cannot be included in the turnover in view of the fact that, (a) the agreement entered into between the assessee and the stockist, wherein it was specifically understood that the lorry freight shall be payable by the stockist and the amount of freight shown on railway receipt/lorry receipt shall be deducted from the invoice of the company, (b) the conditions found in the invoices raised for sale of its product, one among them being that the responsibility of the assessee ceases when the goods are delivered to the carrier and no claims will be accepted for damage or shortage thereafter, and (c) the conditions mentioned in the wholesale price list to the effect that the amount of lorry freight as shown in the lorry receipt shall be payable by the purchaser at the destination and the same shall be deducted from the company’s invoice to arrive at the prices of the product. Further submission is that the rebate towards transport or freight was mutually agreed between the assessee and the customers on the basis of the distance and weight that is, destination and rate per metric tonne. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue would draw the attention of this Court to Rule 6(c) and also the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Tungabhadra Industries Limited, Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, 11 S.T.C. 827 and would contend that since the price included the transport rebate also, that amount cannot be excluded from the taxable turnover. According to the learned counsel the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487 would not apply to the facts of this case. 8. Before we refer to the relevant clauses in the agreement between the petitioner/assessee and the stockist and also the conditions found in the invoice and the price list, point out the relevant provisions in the Act. 8. Before we refer to the relevant clauses in the agreement between the petitioner/assessee and the stockist and also the conditions found in the invoice and the price list, point out the relevant provisions in the Act. Sec.2(p) explains what is ‘taxable turnover’, while Sec.2(q) explains ‘total turnover’ and 2(r), the word ‘turnover’. Suffice to quote Sec.2(p) for the purpose of this case, which reads as under: "Sec.2(p): "Taxable turnover" means the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed." Sec.3 deals with levy of taxes on sales or purchase of goods. Rule 5 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, prescribes the procedure for assessment. Rule 6 is to the effect that the tax or taxes under Sec.3 or 4 shall be leviable on the taxable turnover of the dealer. It is necessary to quote the said rule, Rule 6: The tax or taxes under Sec.3 or 4 shall be levied on the taxable turnover of the dealer. In determining the taxable turnover, the amounts specified in the following clauses shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of a dealer. (a) ... (b) ... (c) all amounts falling under the following three heads when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold: (i) freight; (ii) ... (iii) charges for delivery". 9. The petitioner/assessee entered into an agreement with the stockist and the same contains various terms and conditions. Clauses (8) and (10) of the said agreement would be relevant for the purpose of this case, which read as under: (8) The company shall effect supplies of the Products against the orders received from the Stockists and duly acknowledged by the Company subject to delays in transportation, non-availability of the Products or any other reason and the Company shall not be liable or responsible for any such delay or non-supply. Supply of Products shall be absolutely within the discretion of the Company. The conditions of any railway receipt/lorry receipt shall be binding on the Stockists and the date of delivery shall mean the date of railway receipt/lorry receipt. Supply of Products shall be absolutely within the discretion of the Company. The conditions of any railway receipt/lorry receipt shall be binding on the Stockists and the date of delivery shall mean the date of railway receipt/lorry receipt. In case of Products despatched by railway wagon/lorries railway freight/lorry freight shall be payable by the Stockists and the amount of freight shown on railway receipt/lorry receipt and/or any other sum mutually agreed upon shall be deducted from the invoice of the Company. Supplies, if any, effected to third parties directly from Company’s Factory at Hyderabad/Ballabgarh/Jasidih and/or any depots of the Company against the orders procured by the Stockists and accepted by the Company, the Stockists shall be responsible for the due fulfilment of the contract by the buyers and for payment of all Products supplied. In consideration of the foregoing, the Company shall pay to Stockists such remuneration as may be agreed to from time to time. (10) The terms of the contract of sale of the Products and terms relating to the time and delivery of the Products and the manner and the time in which payments are to be made shall be in the absolute discretion of the Company, who may vary the same from time to time. Apart from that, conditions 4 and 5 in the price list would also be relevant for the purpose of this case, which read as under: (4) Breakages, losses etc., in transit, if any enroute to destination will be exclusively on buyer’s account. The responsibility of the company ceases as soon as the materials are handed over to the carriers in good condition. Goods, can however be insured if so desired by the buyers on their account. The rate of premium can be furnished on application. Claims, if any, shall be settled directly between the buyer and the insurance company without any liability to the company. (5) The prices in this price list are on F.O.R. Destination basis for supplies of minimum one wagon/lorry load. The amount of Rail/Lorry freight as shown in the RR/LR shall be payable by the purchaser at the destination and the same shall be deducted from the company’s invoice to arrive at the prices of the product. (5) The prices in this price list are on F.O.R. Destination basis for supplies of minimum one wagon/lorry load. The amount of Rail/Lorry freight as shown in the RR/LR shall be payable by the purchaser at the destination and the same shall be deducted from the company’s invoice to arrive at the prices of the product. It is also the case of the petitioner that considering the fluctuating market conditions and the consequent transport charges from time to time, the petitioner evolved a scale of rate on the basis of distance in Kms., and per tonne basis to commensurate the transport charges. The said rate of scale of transport charges evolved by the petitioner is informed to all the customers and wherever the customers arrange for their own transport, depending on the place of delivery and the distance of such place from the petitioner’s factory/depot, the applicable scale of rate is adopted and a deduction is given from the F.O.R. price to arrive at ex-factory sale price of the products. The said deduction from the price of products is allowed to all customers arranging the mode of conveyance by themselves. The said deduction in the form of transport rebate is allowed, apart from the discount given in the normal trade practice. The scale of rate of transport rebate evolved by the petitioner has a close nexus to the normal cost of transportation prevailing in the market. The transport rebate as evolved by the petitioner on the basis of distance and tonnage by mutual agreement with the stockist is changed from time to time, whenever there is substantial changes in the transport rate in the market. Thus, the scale evolved by the petitioner cannot be said to be a notional amount, but is in relation to the cost of transportation, if the goods are carried by the customer on his own, without the element of profit. In an endeavour to explain what has been stated above, the petitioner places before the Court the following table, Destination (Kms) Rate per MT ----------------------------------------- 0 - 50 Rs. 55 50 - 100 Rs. 75 101 - 150 Rs. 85 151 - 200 Rs.100 201 - above 0.50 ps. Per Km per ton ----------------------------------------- 10. In an endeavour to explain what has been stated above, the petitioner places before the Court the following table, Destination (Kms) Rate per MT ----------------------------------------- 0 - 50 Rs. 55 50 - 100 Rs. 75 101 - 150 Rs. 85 151 - 200 Rs.100 201 - above 0.50 ps. Per Km per ton ----------------------------------------- 10. Way back in 1960, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Tungabhadra Industries Limited, Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, 11 S.T.C. 827 had an occasion to consider Rule 5(1)(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. The Court quoted the said rule, which reads as under: “all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold: (i) freight; (ii) .....” and held that in order to claim the benefit of this exemption the freight should (a) have been specified and charged for by the dealer separately, and (b) the same should not have been included in the price of the goods sold. In that case, a specimen bill was produced before the Court. Regarding that bill, the Court pointed out that after setting out the quantity sold by weight (23,760 lb), the price is specified as 15 annas 9 pies per lb, and the total amount of the price is determined at Rs.23,388.12.0 and from this the railway freight of Rs.1,439.12.0 was deducted and balance is shown as the sum on which sales tax has been computed. The Court held that from the contents of the invoice, it would be seen that the assessee charged the price inclusive of railway freight and would therefore be outside the terms of Rule 5(1)(g), which requires that in order to enable a dealer to claim the deduction, it should be charged for separately and not included in the price of goods sold. The learned counsel for the revenue would strongly rely on the above ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 11. The learned counsel for the revenue would strongly rely on the above ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee would contend that in view of the specific agreement between the parties, various clauses referred supra, the terms and conditions in the price list and in the invoice and also in view of the subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court, so far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner/assessee would be entitled to exclude the freight charges from its turnover. We have already referred to the various conditions found in the agreement, price list and invoice so also the freight rate fixed. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee referred to the following rulings in support of his contention that the freight charges have to be excluded from the taxable turnover. (a) First he referred to the ruling reported in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487. In that case, the concerned assessment year was 1959-60 and a deduction of Rs.57,970.37 was made in respect of railway freight on articles supplied to outstation customers. To meet the competition from other manufacturers, the company maintained a uniform catalogue rate all over the country in respect of its manufactures and sent goods to outstation customers by railway under railway receipts with freight to pay. The Company made out an invoice at the catalogue rate, and the customer paid the amount of the invoice less the freight for releasing the railway receipt and took delivery of the goods on payment of the railway freight. Consequently the net price received by the company was the catalogue rate less the railway freight charged in respect of the goods transported to the destination. The High Court relied upon the terms of the contract and held that the goods were sold for catalogue price and in paying the freight, the purchaser acted on behalf of the Company. Consequently the net price received by the company was the catalogue rate less the railway freight charged in respect of the goods transported to the destination. The High Court relied upon the terms of the contract and held that the goods were sold for catalogue price and in paying the freight, the purchaser acted on behalf of the Company. Clauses 4 and 16 of the Contract was relied on, which were to the effect that the price of the said productions supplied to the stockists shall be the current general gross list price charged by the company, free on rail, less such discount as may be fixed by the company from time to time, and in case of consignments sold free on rail destination, the railway freight shall be nevertheless payable by the stockists at the destinations and the amount of freight shown on the railway receipt shall be deducted from the invoice of the company. The Court further ruled that under the terms of the contract, there is no obligation on the company to pay the freight and under the terms of the contract the price received by the company for sale of goods is the invoice amount less the freight and to find out the taxable turnover the form in which the invoice is made out is not determinative of the contract between the company and its customers. The learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee strongly relied on this ruling and in fact further submitted that the view taken was subsequently reiterated by the Supreme Court in two decisions reported in Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others, 43 S.T.C. 13 and Ramco Cement Distribution Company Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 88 S.T.C. 151. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee drew the attention of this Court to a particular sentence in the judgment reported in 88 S.T.C. 151 at 158, which reads as under: "This Court, after referring to the above contentions, pointed out that, if the terms and conditions of the contract had stood alone, the assessee might have been entitled to succeed in excluding the freight charges on the principle of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487, but that relief could not be given to the assessee in view of the scheme and provisions of the Cement Control Order and their implications. The terms of the Cement Control Order have been fully analysed and discussed at pages 33 to 35 of the Report. There is, therefore, no difference either on facts or in principle between this case and the Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others, 43 S.T.C. 13." The learned counsel further submitted that the Court in those two rulings declined to include the freight charges from the taxable turnover only in view of the control orders in force at that time, which prevailed over the terms of the contract. As far as the ruling reported in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487, is concerned, that was a matter arising under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 6 of 1957. The term ‘turnover’ has been defined in Sec.2(s) of that Act as under: " ‘turnover’ means the total amount set out in the bill of sale (or if there is no bill of sale, the total amount charged) as the consideration for the sale or purchase of goods (whether such consideration be cash, deferred payment or any other thing of value) including any sums charged by the dealer for anything done in respect of goods sold at the time of or before the delivery of the goods and any other sums charged by the dealer, whatever be the description, name or object thereof: Provided ....." By Sec.5 tax is payable on the total turnover; and "total turnover" is the aggregate of the consideration received for sale or purchase of the goods inclusive of any sums charged by the dealer for anything done in respect of the goods sold at the time of or before the delivery of the goods." In that judgment, the Court referred to two clauses in the terms of the Contract, which are almost similar as found in the case on hand. But what is to be noted is, under that Act, there is no specific provision to the effect that to claim exclusion of freight charges in the taxable turnover the freight charges should not have been included in the price of the goods sold. That being so, the ruling reported in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487, may not advance the case of the petitioner. That being so, the ruling reported in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487, may not advance the case of the petitioner. As already stated, the fact that two clauses viz., Clauses (8) and (10) now found in the agreement in the case on hand are almost similar to Clause (4) and (16) of the agreement referred to in that case Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 24 S.T.C. 487, will not come to the rescue of the petitioner/assessee. That being so, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee. (b) As far as the case reported in Ramco Cement Distribution Company Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 88 S.T.C. 151 is concerned, the High Court held that in tax revision cases arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, the freight, packing charges and excise duty on packing materials have to be included in the sale price for the computation of sales tax. On the second point, the High Court answered that under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, the freight, packing charges and excise duty on packing materials are not liable to be included in the sale price for the computation of the sales tax. The Supreme Court of India first considered the legal position with regard to the Central Sales Tax is concerned and concurred with the view taken by the High Court. Only while considering that, the Supreme Court examined the implication of Cement Control Order and observed as quoted supra, which is being relied on by the writ petitioner. Coming to the second question viz., as to whether under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the freight charges to be excluded or not, the Court observed as follows, “We agree with the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu that, in coming to the above conclusion, the High Court has overlooked the significance of the inclusion of the words” without including them in the price of the goods sold “ in clause (c) These words make it clear that the freight charges are not to be deducted in the computation of the taxable turnover merely because they are specified and charged for separately by the dealer. A further prerequisite for their deduction is that these charges should not have been included in the price of the goods sold. ...” That being so, we are of the view that Ramco Cement Distribution Company Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 88 S.T.C. 151 would not in any way advance the case of the petitioner. (c) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then drew the attention of this Court to the ruling reported in Gordon Woodroffe & Co (M) Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 44 S.T.C. 485. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court held, as far as that case is concerned only the ruling in 24 S.T.C. 487 would apply and not the one reported in 11 S.T.C. 827. Of course, in that case, the Court pointed out that the clause relating to delivery provided in the agreement in 44 S.T.C. 485 was almost similar to the one found in the agreement of sale considered by the Supreme Court in 24 S.T.C. 487. We have to point out, the Court considered only about the terms and conditions in the agreement and it has not taken note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 11 S.T.C. 827 in the last paragraph of the judgment viz., that to claim exclusion of the freight charges from the turnover so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, two conditions are to be satisfied. Hence we are of the view that the said judgment also will not certainly help the petitioner/assessee in any manner. 13. To analyse the case on hand, even according to the petitioner, the sale price in the invoice includes freight charges. The Supreme Court has ruled Tungabhadra Industries Limited, Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, 11 S.T.C. 827 and Ramco Cement Distribution Company Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 88 S.T.C. 151, that to exclude the freight charges, the assessee has to satisfy two conditions viz., (i) should have been specified and charged for by the dealer separately, and (ii) the same should not have been included in the price of the goods sold. The said stipulated conditions are not satisfied by the assessee. The said stipulated conditions are not satisfied by the assessee. All that is claimed by the assessee is, in view of the agreement between the parties and also the conditions found in the invoice and catalogue, the freight charges have to be excluded in calculating the turnover. The legal position is not that Rule 6(c) or two decisions referred supra will be operative only if there is no contract to the contrary between the parties. Even as per the agreement, exact transport charges are not paid by the assessee. The table already furnished would only indicates that the assessee fixed some freight charges on slab basis and he gave that rebate to the purchaser. Thus, the buyer pays the catalogue price less transport rebate allowed, irrespective of the amount paid for freight charges by the assessee. Fluctuation in freight charges is not the concern of the buyer as he is bound to pay only the catalogue price or F.O.R. price. Thus, the agreed price being inclusive of freight subject to fixed transport rebate allowed, it would be a matter of indifference to the customer as to what is the amount of freight. 14. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there are no substance in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.