JUDGMENT N. Kumar :- This appeal is by the assessee against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revising the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and directing payment of tax on the difference in the amount. The appellant is running a wood business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Krishna Saw Mill and Wood Works. But the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the month of March 2006 discloses that, he imported the timber logs from M/s. World Best Trading Company, Dubai through Bill Nos. 3946 and 3946A dated March 17, 2006 for total value in USD 1,35,521.41 and declared the value of the goods in question at Rs. 63,65,441 by the Department by filing VAT form 100 and purchase statements. On verification of the bank statement, it was found out that, the assessee had paid amount of Rs. 63,65,441 to the seller and Rs. 53,656 as commitment charges on the above imports. The difference of amounts works out to Rs. 5,12,493. The assessee contended that the difference in the price is on account of fluctuation in the US dollar. However, he is liable to pay tax only on the initial purchase price and not the price of the goods after it reached Indian stores. The said contention was not accepted by the assessing officer. He held that, the tax is payable for the difference in the amount also. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held, that the differential amount paid by the appellant towards US dollar rate fluctuation is on the date of landing of the goods or at the time of raising of the sale bill by the foreign seller to the RBI cannot be regarded as purchase cost of the goods purchased. The differential amount so paid by the appellant is not a price variation but it is a currency variation. It cannot be considered as part of the purchase price for the simple reason that the said differential amount has not been paid to the foreign seller as a consideration towards the purchase of goods instead, the said amount is paid to the statutory body, i.e., Reserve Bank of India as per the norms and regulations stipulated under the import and export policy of the Government of India. The nomenclature given by the assessing authority is the suppressed turnover of purchase as deemed sales determined is found to be not suppressed turnover instead, it is a fluctuation in the rate of US dollar prevalent in the country as on the date of raising of the purchase bill by the foreign seller in favour of the appellant and therefore, the order of the assessing officer was set aside and the assessee was given the benefit. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised his suo motu power under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. After notice to the assessee, reviewed the order. He held, the dollar and rupee fluctuation is on account of foreign exchange rate determination by the Reserve Bank of India. Any increase on account of fluctuation would have to be borne by the importer. It would have to be paid by the importer. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the demand made by the respondent in Indian currency towards imports cannot be considered as part of purchase price due to increased payment and therefore, he set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before this Court. The learned counsel for the assessee, assailing the impugned order contends that as the assessee had opened letter of credit, the payment is made by the bank to the seller directly. It is after such payment, the goods were dispatched from Dubai. By the time the goods landed in India, there was fluctuation of American dollar. Therefore, he submits, the difference in the price because of fluctuation cannot be construed as a turnover and the assessee cannot be made to pay the tax on the said amount. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that absolutely no material is placed on record before any of the authorities to show what is the price agreed upon, what is the actual payment made to the purchaser and what is the exchange rate of American dollar on the day the order was placed and on the day the goods was received in India. Similarly, there is no material on record to show that the assessee has paid difference in amount to the Reserve Bank of India. Similarly, there is no material on record to show that the assessee has paid difference in amount to the Reserve Bank of India. It is under these circumstances, he submits, it is not safe to accept the submission of the assessee and it requires to be looked into with reference to the facts and the documents supporting the said facts and therefore, he submits that the matter has to be remanded back to the assessing officer to consider in the light of the aforesaid facts. From the material on record, it is not clear, what was the purchase price on the day the order was placed. It is also not clear what is the amount paid by the bank and what is the exchange rate on the date of such payment. In the absence of that crucial material it is not possible to come to any conclusion in that regard. We see full force in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside all these orders and remand the matter back to the assessing officer so that the appellants would be free to place all relevant materials and then the assessing officer shall pass appropriate orders after carefully going through the said material. That would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the three authorities are thereby set aside. (iii) The entire matter is remitted back to the assessing officer giving liberty to the assessee to produce such material in support of his contention and on such material being produced, the assessing officer shall proceed to consider the same and complete the assessment and pass appropriate orders. The parties to bear their own costs.