JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 2, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1996-97. The applicant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The applicant was engaged in the business of sophisticated cylindrical grinding machines. During the year under consideration the applicant had sold one such machine to M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon against bill No. 07, dated April 25, 1996 for Rs. 65,43,222. Against the aforesaid bill on the claim of the purchaser that the machine was not properly working and as a result of negotiations credit note for Rs. 14,29,900 was issued by the applicant in favour of M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon. The sale consideration was reduced by Rs. 14,29,900 and on the balance amount the liability of tax has been admitted. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of reduction of the sale consideration by Rs. 14,29,900 and had levied Central sales tax on the entire amount of bill for Rs. 65,43,222. The applicant had also sold one machine to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) and had despatched the same against challan No. 151, dated December 21, 1996. The applicant claimed that due to non-payment the machine was brought back on March 5, 1998. It was claimed that the delivery of the machine was not given to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) but was taken at Salem, by the agent of the applicant, who had kept the said machine in exhibition for sometime and, thereafter, on non-receipt of the payment, same was returned back. The applicant claimed that the sale was not completed and, therefore, on the value of the machine, the applicant was not liable for tax. The assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the applicant and had levied the tax on the value of the machine at Rs. 13,73,994. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated August 9, 1999 upheld the levy of tax on the aforesaid two transactions. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. 13,73,994. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated August 9, 1999 upheld the levy of tax on the aforesaid two transactions. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in respect of machine sold by the applicant to M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon the purchaser complained about its proper operation. As a result of negotiations between the parties, it was decided to reduce the price by 25 per cent being Rs. 14,29,900. As a result of which debit note was issued by M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon for Rs. 16,35,806, which included the principal amount of Rs. 14,29,900 and the amount of excise duty and Central sales tax thereon. On the receipt of debit note, applicant wrote a letter dated July 1, 1997 to M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon stating therein that the reduction of 25 per cent would be allowed only on principal amount and the amount of excise duty and Central sales tax for Rs. 2,05,906 would be considered for payment only after getting the same from Government department as the same have been deposited in the Government department and accordingly, credit note for Rs. 14,29,900 was issued on March 31, 1997. He submitted that credit note was issued reducing the price of the machine and it was not in the nature of rebate or discount or any kind of deduction. Thus, the sale price would be the sale price mentioned in the invoice, less Rs. 14,29,900 on which tax is payable. He submitted that the Tribunal and the authorities below have illegally levied the tax on the entire amount. In respect of the consignment of one grinding machine sent to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) vide challan No. 151, dated December 21, 1996, he submitted that only the machine was despatched to the said party. He submitted that the Tribunal and the authorities below have illegally levied the tax on the entire amount. In respect of the consignment of one grinding machine sent to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) vide challan No. 151, dated December 21, 1996, he submitted that only the machine was despatched to the said party. The delivery was taken by its agent, M/s. K.G.P. Technovators, Coimbatore, and the same was kept in exhibition and, thereafter, when M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) could not make the payment, the same was returned back to the applicant. He submitted that at no stage machine was delivered to the so-called purchaser, the payment was not received and, therefore, sale was not completed. Since the sale was not completed, no tax could be levied. Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that from the gross amount, the deduction can be allowed only under section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the Central Act") and rule 44B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 and both the aforesaid section and rule do not permit any such deduction and, therefore, reduction of price by issuing the credit only beyond the specified period is not admissible and the claim of the applicant has rightly been rejected. With regard to the second transaction, namely, dispatch of machine to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu), he submitted that the machine was sent against challan to the said party. Builty was also prepared in the name of the said party, therefore, presumption is that the delivery of the goods must have been taken by the said party. He submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the applicant to prove that the delivery was not taken by M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) but had been taken by the agent of the applicant. He submitted that the delivery of the machine was taken by M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu). Thus, the sale was completed and once the sale was completed then in accordance with section 8A of the Central Act the deduction is permissible only in case the goods are returned within six months but in the present case admittedly the goods was returned back after six months, therefore, the value of the machine cannot be deducted from the gross amount. He submitted that the revision is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 8A of the Central Act and rule 44B of the Rules read as follows : "Section 8A. Determination of turnover. - (1) In determining the turnover of a dealer for the purpose of this Act, the following deductions shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices, namely : (a) the amount arrived at applying the following formula : Rate of tax x aggregate of sale prices ---------------------------------------- 100 + rate of tax Provided that no deduction on the basis of the above formula shall be made if the amount by way of tax collected by a registered dealer, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, has been otherwise deducted from the aggregate of sale prices. 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; (b) the sale price of all goods returned to the dealer by the purchasers of such goods, - (i) within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods, in the case of goods returned before the 14th day of May, 1966; (ii) within a period of six months from the date of delivery of the goods in the case of goods returned on or after the 14th day of May, 1966 : Provided that satisfactory evidence of such return of goods and of refund or adjustment in accounts of the sale price thereof is produced before the authority competent to assess or, as the case may be, reassess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act; and (c) such other deductions as the Central Government may, having regard to the prevalent market conditions, facility of trade and interests of consumers, prescribe. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), in determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this Act, no deduction shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices." "Rule 44B. Determination of turnover of goods involved in the execution of works contracts. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), in determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this Act, no deduction shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices." "Rule 44B. Determination of turnover of goods involved in the execution of works contracts. - The tax under section 3F on the turnover relating to the business of transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract shall be computed on the net turnover relating to works contracts. In determining the net turnover, the amounts specified below shall be deducted if they are included in the gross turnover - (a) the amounts representing the purchase price of such goods, involved in the execution of such works contract, on the sale or purchase whereof the tax under the Act is shown to the satisfaction of the assessing authority to have been paid; (b) the amounts representing the purchase price of such goods involved in the execution as such works contracts, as are exempt from tax under section 4 or have been purchased from an industrial unit which is exempt from tax under section 4A; (c) the amounts representing the value of such of the goods, involved in the execution of such works contract, as were supplied to the contractor by the contractee himself, provided the property in such goods remains under the terms of the contract throughout with the contractee and the contractor is bound to return the unused goods to the contractee. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, gross turnover shall mean the aggregate of the amounts received or receivable by a dealer in an assessment year as valuable consideration for the transfer of property in goods used in the execution of a works contract after the commencement of this rule, whether or not the amount receivable as valuable consideration for such transfer is separately shown in the works contract and whether the execution of such works contract commenced during the year earlier, and includes any advance received by the dealer towards valuable consideration for the works contract." Section 8A(b) of the Central Act applies to the goods returned by the purchaser and in the said case the limitation provided is applicable. Clause (c) provides deduction as the Central Government may, having regard to the prevalent market conditions, facility of trade and interests of consumers, prescribe. So far as the first transaction is concerned, which relates to the sale of machines to M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon is concerned, the sale price has been reduced by 25 per cent by issuing the credit note. It is not the case of goods returned. Therefore, section 8A(b) of the Central Act does not apply. In the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC), the apex court held that the sale price is the amount which purchaser pays to the seller towards the sale consideration. The issuance of credit note for Rs. 14,29,900 by the seller in favour of the purchaser and the necessary entry in the account of the purchaser are not in dispute. In this view of the matter the sale consideration has been reduced by Rs. 14,29,900, which was neither payable nor paid by the purchaser to the seller. In the circumstances, in my view, the amount of credit note cannot be said to be a part of turnover and cannot be taxed. However, it may be mentioned here that the applicant had realised the amount of excise duty and the tax on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,29,900 from the purchaser for which credit note was not issued, therefore, the refund of the amount of tax can only be allowed under the provision of section 29A(3) of the Act. So far as the second transaction, namely, the supply of goods to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) is concerned, admittedly, the goods were despatched to M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu) which is clear from the delivery challan, annexure 12 to the revision petition. The builty was in the name of the said party, therefore, presumption is that the delivery of the goods must have been given to the said party. No evidence has been adduced to prove that the delivery was not given/taken by M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu). It is not the case of the applicant that bill for the said machine was not issued. No evidence has been adduced to prove that the delivery was not given/taken by M/s. Vengatachalam Engineering Works Private Limited, Salem (Tamil Nadu). It is not the case of the applicant that bill for the said machine was not issued. In this view of the matter, once the delivery is taken by the purchasing party, the sale completed and in the case of the goods returned, the provision of section 8A(b) of Central Act applies and according to said section, goods should be returned within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods for the claim of deduction. Admittedly, the goods had been returned much after six months, and, therefore, the deduction was not legally allowable and has rightly been rejected. Order of the Tribunal in this regard is upheld. In the result, revision is allowed in part. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under section 11(8) of the Act.