JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.) The appellant M/s D.D. Motors has come up in the revision challenging the consolidated order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 25.08.2014, whereby in an appeal for the assessment year 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, the Tribunal has held that the logistics charges, charged by the dealer/assessee, which includes the service tax charged by the dealer on the logistic charge will form the freight price and will be included in the taxable turn over, and in this backdrop, has affirmed the assessment order. 2. The revisionist is an assessee and even the authorized dealer of the Maruti Udyog Limited, and he had sold different cars of maruti limited from his show-room at Dehradun. 3. For the assessment year 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, are the regular assessment of the assessee was completed and he paid the tax. Subsequent to passing of the original assessment order, the assessee received a notice under section 29 (4) of the UK VAT Act, 2005, calling upon the revisionist to show-cause why tax should not be imposed on the logistic charges, charged separately by the revisionist/dealer in the sale invoices. 4. The case set up by the revisionist before the Authorities was that the freight from “Gurgaon to Dehradun” had been included in the sale price of the car. However, on account of the geographical situation of the Dehradun town, the cars had to be unloaded at Biharigarh, which is outside the boundary of the Dehradun, and every car thereafter was brought to Dehradun by road individually. For this exercise, an extra service provided by the dealer was separately charged from the customer and service tax was paid on that logistic charge. However, vide order dated 31.07.2013, Annexure no.1, the freight charges which were paid by the customers in the process of taking car from Biharigarh to Dehradun were added in the turnover and were taxed. 5. An appeal was filed taking the grounds for the assessment year 2005-2006 to 2010-2011. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.03.2014, Annexure no.3, held that the logistic charges, which was charged by the assessee separately in his sale invoice and deleted the tax levied on the logistic charges by the Assessing Authority. 6. 5. An appeal was filed taking the grounds for the assessment year 2005-2006 to 2010-2011. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.03.2014, Annexure no.3, held that the logistic charges, which was charged by the assessee separately in his sale invoice and deleted the tax levied on the logistic charges by the Assessing Authority. 6. The Commissioner Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, filed the second appeal, before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, and the Commercial Tax Tribunal had consolidated all the appeals and decided by the common judgment dated 25.08.2014, Annexure no.5, and restored the order passed by the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal proceeded that the original assessment order of the assessee under Section 25 (6) of the VAT Act, was completed. However, the survey was conducted by the SIB, Branch of Department dated 07.09.2010, whereby the SIB reported that the assessee for each relevant assessment year had charged a separate amount, apart from the sale price in sale invoices as logistic charges, and has not paid tax on that amount. By referring to the definition of the “sale price” as defined under Section 2(42) of the VAT Act, and the word “turnover of sales” under Section 2(50) of the VAT Act and the word “incidence of tax” under Section 3 of the VAT Act, the Tribunal held that the expenses incurred by the dealer after the sale of the car will not form part of the turnover, but the expenses incurred by the dealer on predelivery of goods will be included in the sale price, whether separately charged. 7. On the above backdrop, now the present revisions have been filed against the order of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the revisionist, has referred to the few sale invoices Annexure no.7, which the manufacturer had issued to the dealer/revisionist, when price of the car is fixed by the manufacturer. The car was sold on the price fixed by the manufacturer and charged the VAT on that price. 8. The sale invoices issued by the revisionist are Annexure no.8, which shows the sale price as that reflected in the sale invoice Annexure no.7. As per the manufacturer the sale price included the freight charges up to Dehradun. However, on account of hilly areas, the cars had to be unloaded at Biharigarh, outside the boundary of the Dehradun, and then every car was brought to Dehradun by road individually. As per the manufacturer the sale price included the freight charges up to Dehradun. However, on account of hilly areas, the cars had to be unloaded at Biharigarh, outside the boundary of the Dehradun, and then every car was brought to Dehradun by road individually. The money paid for this travelling was not part of the sale invoice Annexure no.7. Hence, for all intentions and purposes, the learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist/assessee could not charged more than the sale invoice Annexure no.7 and even the sale invoices issued by the revisionist/dealer is Annexure no.8. Once as per the manufacturer, the sale invoices Annexure no.7, included the freight charges from “Gurgaon to Dehradun” the revisionist was only bound to pay the tax on the turnover as per the sale price as reflected in Annexure nos.7 and 8 of the revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to a judgment of Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court as reported in 2010 (2) U.D. 420 , “Sanjay Agarwal Vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttarakhand” where there was a separate agreement between the manufacturer and the dealer, which provided that freight charges and trade tax were required to be charged separately in the bills, price of goods were charged separately and freight charges and trade tax were charged separately, and hence the Assessing Authority committed an error in including the freight charges and trade tax in the turn over. 10. A perusal of this judgment shows with regard to the freight charges in paragraphs 6, 7, 12 and 13, as observed as under:- “6. The only question which arises for consideration in this revision is with regard to the tax liability on a dealer with regard to freight charges and Trade Tax. The revisionist has relied upon the definition of Section 2 Explanation II(i) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 which defines turnover as under:- “[(i) the amount for which goods are sold or purchased shall include the price of the packing material in which they are packed and any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at time of or before the delivery thereof, other than cost of freight or delivery or cost of installation or the amount realised as [trade tax on sale or purchase of goods], when such cost or amount is separately charged];” 7. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that if freight and Trade Tax is charged separately and is also realised separately then the amount, so realised, cannot be treated as part of the turnover. The tax liability with regard to freight charges and Trade Tax can only be fixed on a categorical finding being given, namely, that the freight charges and Trade Tax has not been realised separately and that it was inclusive of the price of the goods sold. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Assessing authority to examine all the bills and give a specific and categorical finding as to how much of the amount as freight charges was realised separately and how much was it realised inclusively. 12. In State of Karnataka vs. Banglore Soft Drinks (P) Ltd., 2000(10) S.C.C. 531 , the Supreme Court also held that where freight charges was collected separately, the same was not includible in the taxable turnover of the seller. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that in view of the evidence filed by the revisionist, the assessee was entitled for exemption of freight and Trade Tax in its turnover and the Assessing Authority committed a manifest error in including the Trade Tax and freight charges in the turnover of the revisionist. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders, namely, the Assessment Order, the Appellate Order as well as the Second Appellate order cannot be sustained and are quashed. The revision is allowed. The Assessing Authority is directed to pass a consequential assessment order giving exemption to the assessee with regard to freight and trade tax for the assessment years in question. 11. Learned State Counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s India Meters Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, Civil Appeal No.1032-33 of 2003, decided on 07.09.2010. In the facts of that case, the assessee had not included freight charges in its taxable turnover. However, it had collected freight charges and insurance charges separately, but the same had not been shown in the monthly returns. The assessee was liable to pay freight charges, as sale would include deliver in the premises of the buyer, and for the final delivery of the goods, he had to incur freight charges. However, it had collected freight charges and insurance charges separately, but the same had not been shown in the monthly returns. The assessee was liable to pay freight charges, as sale would include deliver in the premises of the buyer, and for the final delivery of the goods, he had to incur freight charges. Since this freight charges were paid before the delivery of goods, they were to be regarded as amount paid by the seller on behalf of the buyer. 12. The facts of the above said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, as per the sale invoices placed on record by the revisionist as Annexure No.7 at Page No.112 to the Revision, the sale price includes at Sl. No.13 “transportation charges”. Annexure No.7 at Page No.112, is the original invoice for the buyer, which includes transportation charges. Annexure-8 is the retail invoice of the D.D. Motors, which includes loading/ unloading charges. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the sale price included transportation, loading/ unloading charges. Hence, the amount of sale price included transportation, loading/ unloading charges, and these charges were also part of the turnover of the revisionist. 13. On similar facts, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bihar State Electricity Board and another vs. Usha Martin Industries and another”, (1997) 5 SCC 289 , referred to by the State, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as even in that case, the Supreme Court while considering the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, held that the entire price inclusive of excise duty would constitute sale price for supply of energy and even if, excise duty on electricity is abolished, the Board was not liable to reduce the uniform tariff. The electricity tariff was fixed by the Electricity Board and the State Government, and it was a policy decision, and High Court could not decide the proper price and direct the Board to ensure the tariff accordingly. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the issue of abolition of excise duty. However, in the present case, as per the invoices (Annexures-7 and 8), transportation, loading/ unloading charges are already part of the invoices for buyer. 15. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the issue of abolition of excise duty. However, in the present case, as per the invoices (Annexures-7 and 8), transportation, loading/ unloading charges are already part of the invoices for buyer. 15. The Full Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax Revision No.44 of 2022, decided on 11.07.2023, “Prabhagiya Vipnan Prabandhak Uttarakhand Forest Development Ramnagar vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Uttarakhand, Dehradun”, was examining the issue of interpretation of sale prices in the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which was amended by Act No.05 of 2008, and definition of ‘Sale Price’ has been included under Section 2 sub-section 42 of the Act. The Full Bench was examining the issue of collection of market fees by the dealer, and held that market fees had to be part of turnover for the purpose of levy of tax. The Full Bench further observed that in the definition of ‘Sale Price’, it has been specifically mentioned that cash discount, commission or trade discount, cost of outward freight or delivery or the cost of installation in case where such cost is separately charges and the amount of tax under the Act, if separately charged by the dealer, shall not include in the ‘sale price’. However, in the facts of the present case, even this judgment will not be applicable, as transportation, loading/ unloading charges are already part of the sale price. 16. In the facts of the present case, the complete freight charges were part of the sale invoice, as per Annexures-7 and 8, and delivery of goods was made near Dehradun. However, the car had to be unloaded at Biharigarh, outside the boundary of Dehradun. Hence, outside the boundary of Dehradun, the goods had to be delivered, and the revisionist had paid the entire sale price, including, transportation, loading/ unloading charges. The cars were unloaded at Bihargarh because being a hilly area. From Biharigarh, the cars were taken by the revisionist individually, and hence, the money spent on transportation from Biharigarh could not be made part of the sale price, and turnover of the respective years, since this price was never the part of sale invoices (Annexures-7 and 8), and hence, the amount paid by the revisionist for unloading the cars at Biharigarh could not be made part of the sale price and turnover. There was no separate agreement for transportation of goods, and freight charges were part of the original invoices (Annexures-7 and 8). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Sanjay Agarwal vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttarakhand”, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 420, was examining the case where freight charges and trade charges were charged separately, and price of goods was charged separately, and the Division Bench held that the Assessing Authority had committed an error in including the Trade Tax and freight charges in the turnover of the revisionist. 17. Since the revisionist had already paid the freight, loading/ unloading charges as per Annexures-7 and 8, the charges paid for transportation, loading/ unloading the cars cannot be made part of the sale price and turnover. 18. Accordingly, the present Commercial Tax Revisions are allowed, and the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 05.08.2014 for the assessment year 2005-06 to the assessment year 2010-11, is set-aside, and the logistic charges charged by the assessee from Biharigarh to Dehradun taking the cars individually, after unloading the same, could not be made part of the turnover, and it could not be taxed. 19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.