Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a sales tax reference made to this Court at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, hereinafter called "the Act") since repealed and replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, by the Board of Revenue in reference case No. 20-PBR/91 arising out of an order, dated August 27, 1990, passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal No. 276-III/86 to answer the following questions of law said to arise out of the aforementioned order of the Board of Revenue: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the handling charges shown separately in the bills are deductible from the taxable turnover? Facts necessary for the disposal of this reference need mention in brief infra to appreciate the issue referred: ( 2. ) THE dealer (respondent herein) is a limited company. They are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of atta, maida, suji, etc. ( 3. ) FOR the period January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983, the dealer was assessed to Central sales tax for certain inter-State sales transactions vide assessment order dated November 28, 1985 on a total turnover of Rs. 39,61,468. After giving deduction of Rs. 51,562 on account of rebate/discount on certain sales, the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 37,92,803. ( 4. ) THE dealer felt aggrieved of the assessment made by the assessing officer filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal ). In appeal, the dealer contended that a sum of Rs. 13,191 was wrongly included in the turnover. According to the dealer, this sum of Rs. 13,191 was charged on account of what is called "hammali" and hence, it did not, nor could it form the part of sale price and so of turnover. By order, dated September 4, 1986 (annexure C), the Deputy Commissioner did not accept the contention of the dealer and treating the said amount of Rs. 13,191, to be a part of turnover refused to grant any deduction of the said amount. In consequence, the appeal filed by dealer in so far as it related to deduction of Rs. 13,191 was concerned, the same was dismissed. ( 5. ) AGGRIEVED, the dealer filed further appeal to the Board of Revenue. 13,191, to be a part of turnover refused to grant any deduction of the said amount. In consequence, the appeal filed by dealer in so far as it related to deduction of Rs. 13,191 was concerned, the same was dismissed. ( 5. ) AGGRIEVED, the dealer filed further appeal to the Board of Revenue. By order under reference (annexure D), the Tribunal, i. e. , Board of Revenue, allowed the appeal and accepted the contention of the dealer. It was held that a sum of Rs. 13, 191 do not form part of the turnover. According to the Board, the amount of Rs. 13, 191 paid by the dealer to various Hammals are in the nature of delivery charges having been paid to Hammals separately and hence, they have to be deducted from the sale price. In this view, the Board accepted the plea of the dealer and directed making of deduction of Rs. 13, 191 from the taxable turnover of the dealer for the period in question. It is against this view of the Board of Revenue, deciding the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the dealer, the Revenue (Commissioner of Sales Tax) sought the reference to this Court. The Board acceded to the prayer made by the Revenue and has accordingly referred to this Court the aforementioned question of law for answer. ( 6. ) HEARD Shri A. S. Kutumble, learned Additional Advocate-General with Shri M. Parwal, learned penal lawyer for the applicant. None for the nonapplicant, though served. ( 7. ) PLACING reliance on the decision reported in Vimalchand Prakashchand, Sarafa, Ujjain v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1968 ]22 STC22 (MP ), learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the question referred to this Court must be answered in favour of the State. It was his submission that it is the law laid down in Vimalchands case [1968 ]22 STC22 (MP ) that charges paid for adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance are a part of price paid by the purchaser and hence, the same have to be included in the turnover. Learned Counsel, therefore, on the basis of this decision urged that the question referred be answered in favour of the Revenue. None appeared for the dealer despite notice. ( 8. Learned Counsel, therefore, on the basis of this decision urged that the question referred be answered in favour of the Revenue. None appeared for the dealer despite notice. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the dealer. In other words, the view taken by the Board is right on facts found. ( 9. ) SECTION 2 (h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 defines what is "sale price". It reads as under: 2 (h ). sale price means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. ( 10. ) A reading of aforesaid definition makes it clear that while working out the sale price of any goods, following factors are deductible from the sale price: 1. Any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade. 2. Cost of freight. 3. Cost of delivery. 4. Cost of installation where such cost is separately charged. ( 11. ) IN the present case, it has been held as a fact by all the authorities that handling charges, i. e. , Hammali worth Rs. 13, 191 was charged separately and was also shown separately in the bills by the dealer. In our opinion, therefore, these charges were in the nature of cost of delivery of goods like coolie charges and hence, had to be deductible from the sale price. In other words, cost of delivery charges, if separately recovered do not form part of the sale price and fall in the excluded category of sale price as defined in Section 2 (h) ibid. ( 12. In other words, cost of delivery charges, if separately recovered do not form part of the sale price and fall in the excluded category of sale price as defined in Section 2 (h) ibid. ( 12. ) IN our considered opinion, therefore, when the cost of delivery charges of any goods is recovered separately by the dealer from their purchaser then in that event, the dealer is entitled to claim deduction of the said charges on the ground that such charges do not form part of the sale price and falls within the excluded category of charges as enumerated supra from the definition of "sale price" as defined in Section 2 (h) ibid. ( 13. ) IN our opinion, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue on the decision of Vimalchand [1968 ]22 STC22 (MP ), is distinguishable on facts. In that case, it was found as a fact that assessee/dealer had received from the purchasers on account of adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance as part of price paid by the purchaser of cotton. This is clear from following observations of their Lordship made in paragraph 4 of the decision:. . . In the statement of the case, the facts have not been fully stated. But on the facts found by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in first appeal, which were affirmed in second appeal by the Tribunal, it becomes abundantly clear that what the assessee received from the purchasers on account of adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance was a part of the price paid by the purchasers of cotton. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the assessee admitted that he added to the purchase price dalali, adat and other charges, and realised the aggregate of such amounts from the buyers. Thus the payment of the amounts on account of adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance must be regarded as part of the consideration for the sales. The burden of proving that these charges did not form any part of the consideration for the sales of cotton was on the assessee. But it led no evidence whatsoever to show that these charges were not included in the price and that it could not refuse to perform the contract for the sale of cotton if the purchasers refused to pay charges on account of adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance. But it led no evidence whatsoever to show that these charges were not included in the price and that it could not refuse to perform the contract for the sale of cotton if the purchasers refused to pay charges on account of adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance. In our opinion, on the facts found by the Tribunal, the amount of charges in regard to adat, dalali, bank commission, charity and insurance received by the assessee was rightly included in the sale price and consequently in the turnover of the assessee. ( 14. ) IN the light of factual finding so recorded in that case their Lordship ruled that such charges must therefore, form part of sale price. So the law laid down in Vimalchands case [1968] 22 STC 22 (MP) : [1969] 2 VKN 44, turned on facts found in that case. Such is not the case here. On the other hand, in the present case, a categorical finding is recorded in favour of dealer that they charged the "hammali" separately as delivery charges and also shown separately in the bills. In these circumstances, the burden that lay on dealer to prove this fact was fully discharged by them by filing documentary evidence which was relied on for recording finding of fact in their favour. They were, therefore, rightly held entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 13,191 from the total turnover because this amount could not be regarded as forming part of sale price but it fell outside its purview. ( 15. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us against the Revenue and in favour of the dealer. In other words, we answer the question by holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that handling charges shown separately in the bills are deductible from the taxable turnover. ( 16. ) NO costs.