JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - These two revisions were heard together and are being disposed by a common judgment as the facts and controversy involved therein are common and interwoven. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87. The dealer opposite party carries on the business of purchase and sale of tractor, tractor parts, accessories, etc. In the assessment year in the question only a limited controversy relating to the return of the goods and its consequent set-off in the trade tax is involved. Before proceedings further it may be noticed that the earlier tractor was taxable up to May 20, 1986. Thereafter, by a notification issued by the State Government, the tractor has been exempted from the trade tax. During the assessment proceeding the dealer opposite party claimed that certain tractors which were sold earlier, i.e., before May 20, 1986 have been returned by the customer and therefore it claimed that the turnover be determined in respect of those tractors as provided for in rule 44A(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. The said claim did not find favour with the assessing officer as according to him it was nobody's case that the goods were in any manner defective. The order of the assessing officer has been confirmed in appeal by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal, however, by the order under revision has held that there is no requirement under the aforesaid rule that the goods should be defective. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the goods were returned within six months which is condition requisite for claiming the benefit under the aforesaid rule and the transaction in question is duly accounted for in the account books. The learned Standing Counsel has raised the following questions of law : "1. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to allow the exemption on sale return of tractors despite the fact that it was a colourable device to avoid the tax ? 2. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to deduct the amount of material service performance security deposit and labour service performance security deposits from the total turnover of the dealer without considering the facts and definition of the 'turnover' ?" The learned standing counsel submits that the benefit of exemption notification was available to the dealers if the tractors are sold on the price as existed on December 31, 1984, otherwise not. The submission is that to avail of the said benefit, a device was invented by the dealer - opposite party in the present case. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the goods in question, namely, the tractors were never returned. To avail of the concessional rate of tax, corresponding entries were made in the account books and the credit note was issued by the dealer - opposite party to the customers. The further submission is that since the dealer - opposite party has failed to establish that the tractors were in any manner defective, there was no occasion to return the tractors. The Tribunal in its order has found that it is no requirement of rule 44A(a) of the Rules that the goods can be returned only when the same is defective. The Tribunal has found that all the ingredients of rule 44A(a) of the Rules have been complied with by the dealer opposite party. So far as the contention of the learned standing counsel that it was a colourable device to avoid the payment of tax is concerned, it has got no substance. The benefit has been made available by the State Government by granting exemption on fulfilment of certain conditions and if a person manages his business affairs in such a manner to avail of the said benefit of concession, merely on this ground it cannot be said that it is colourable device to avoid the tax liability. If a person does a thing which is permissible under law, his said action in absence of any other material cannot be treated as a colourable device. Every taxpayer has right to arrange his affairs in such a manner without there being any infraction of law to pay the minimum tax. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the authorities below were not right in rejecting the claim of the dealer - opposite party simply on the ground that the goods were not defective. It is not the requirement of the rule that the benefit thereunder shall be available only to such goods which are defective. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. There is no merit in the revision. Both the revisions are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.