JUDGMENT N. Kumar :- Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order. The appellant is a partnership firm, registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and is engaged in sale of cement concrete blocks. In other words, he is a dealer in cement concrete blocks. He filed returns for various months from January 2006 to May 2007 and paid tax under the Act at four per cent on the turnover for each of the above months and also claimed exemption on the turnover in respect transportation charges incurred by the appellant and reimbursed by its customers to the appellant. The first respondent issued proposition notice under section 3(1) of the Act wherein, he proposed to disallow the claim of exemption and re-determined the taxable turnover for January 2006 at Rs. 1,59,13,832 and levied tax at four per cent on the ground that the appellant was not eligible to claim exemption in respect of transportation charges as per rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, "the Rules"). Even for the subsequent period, the Department declined to grant exemption. The appellant filed a detailed reply objecting to the proposed disallowance of the transportation charges under rule 3(2) of the Rules on the ground that the transportation charge is not part of taxable turnover as the goods were transported to the customers' destination at their request and the bills showed the transportation charges separately and not as a part of the goods sold since the transportation charges were reimbursable to the customers by the appellant. By an order dated October 12, 2007, the first respondent passed an order declining to grant the aforesaid deduction. Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred the appeal. The appellate authority by his order dated November 30, 2007 held that transportation charges would not come within the meaning of "taxable turnover" and further held rule 3(2) cannot override the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred the appeal. The appellate authority by his order dated November 30, 2007 held that transportation charges would not come within the meaning of "taxable turnover" and further held rule 3(2) cannot override the provisions of the Act. Against the said order, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in pursuance of the power conferred on him under section 64(1) of the Act, where suo motu power of revision is vested in him, has revised the order after hearing the appellant and held that the deduction of transportation charges is against the interest of the Revenue and that the transaction of transportation of goods is liable to be taxed in terms of section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, held that the deduction allowed by the first appellate authority is illegal and accordingly he set aside the same and restored the order of the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant - assessee submitted that in the invoice raised, the transportation charge is separately mentioned. It is optional and after the said amount was collected from the customer on behalf of the transporter and the entire amount of transportation charges collected was paid to the transporter without adding any amount to the value of the goods. They only received Rs. 150 per load as commission and in that view of the matter, the transportation charges would not be a part of the total turnover and they are not liable to pay tax on the said amount. The revisional authority committed a serious illegality in interfering with the well-considered order passed by the first appellate authority. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the scheme of the Act, freight charges are not one of those items which can be taken into consideration in arriving at the taxable turnover. That apart, rule 3(2) does not provide for deduction towards freight charges as was the position earlier and therefore, the Legislature has explicitly made it clear by declining to grant deduction on freight charges and therefore, he submits that the order passed by the revisional authority is correct and in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this court. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the question of law that arises for our consideration is as under : (i) Whether the freight charges collected by the assessee under the invoice as total added value (including transportation charges) is liable to tax under section 3(1) of the Act ? Section 3(1) of the Act is the charging section. It provides that the tax shall be levied on every sale of goods in the State by a registered dealer or a dealer liable to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 4 provides for the rate on which the tax is paid in respect of the goods mentioned in Schedules II, III and IV and in respect of other goods which does not form part of the Schedules. Section 2(34) defines what a "taxable turnover" is Section 2(35) defines what is "total turnover" and section 2(36) defines the meaning of the word "turnover" and section 2(29) defines what a "sale" means under the Act. Section 2(31) defines "taxable sale" and section 2(32) defines what a "tax invoice" means. Rule 3(1) provides for determination of turnover. The tax is not payable on turnover. Tax is payable on taxable turnover arrived at as stipulated in rule 3(2) of the Rules. Rule 3(2) provides for deductions out of the turnover to arrive at taxable turnover. Freight charge paid in the course of sale of goods by a dealer to its customer is not one such item which could be deducted out of turnover. Therefore, in arriving at a taxable turnover, the statute does not provide for deduction of freight charges. In view of the various provisions in the earlier enactment, which had provided for such deduction, a bona fide doubt did exist in the minds of the dealers. Therefore, they sought for a clarification from the Government. In fact, they wanted an amendment to rule 3 to include freight charges, which are eligible for deduction as the same are post-sale expenditure. It was clarified by a communication dated May 18, 2007. In reply the Government clarified the position as under : (a) If the freight/transportation charges are paid by the seller prior to the delivery of goods and ownership and risk remains with the seller, then such transportation charges are part of the sale consideration and liable to tax. It was clarified by a communication dated May 18, 2007. In reply the Government clarified the position as under : (a) If the freight/transportation charges are paid by the seller prior to the delivery of goods and ownership and risk remains with the seller, then such transportation charges are part of the sale consideration and liable to tax. (b) If the freight/transportation charges collected are post-sale expenditure, then the said charges do not form part of sale consideration and not liable to tax. The dealers who collect such charges are required to prove this point, with documentary evidence to claim deduction on such charges. (c) There is no case for amending the current rule to provide for deduction generally in all cases. Hence, the request for amendment of rule 3 in this regard cannot be acceded to. In the light of the expressed provisions under the Acts and the Rules and the explanation given by the Government, the position is clear that the dealer collects freight charges as part of total order value. Though it is specifically mentioned what is the cost component to the said transportation charges, collecting the value before effecting sale of the goods, when sale of goods becomes complete only after the delivery of the goods, therefore, it becomes part of taxable turnover. If after transfer of title to the goods by delivery of the goods, for which he has already collected the price of the goods and after delivery if he receives the transportation charges, then the said amount does not form part of the taxable turnover as it is not a part of the sale consideration or paid prior to sale of the goods. That appears to be a clear manifestation of the intention by the Legislature as contained in various definitions referred to above and the clarifications issued by the Government. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the revisional authority is strictly in accordance with law, whereas the appellate authority was carried away by the legal position prior to the enactment of the Act and thus he got confused himself without looking into the express provisions contained in the Act. The revisional authority was therefore justified in interfering with the order as the order was prejudicial to the remedy. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The revisional authority was therefore justified in interfering with the order as the order was prejudicial to the remedy. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we hold the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and dismiss this appeal. Parties to bear their own costs.