ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) This Tax Revision Case is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dt.02.09.2010 in TA.No.361 of 2006, for the assessment year 2001-02 under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State and perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the appellant before the Tribunal, and assessee on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Warangal. 4. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has upheld the order of the assessing authority in subjecting an amount of Rs.4,07,15,000/- received by the petitioner as bonus for timely supplies and shown in the balance sheet under the head of ‘other receipts’. 5. On behalf of the revision petitioner-assessee it is contended that in respect of supply of coal by the petitioner- assessee to the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and M/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, it had received certain amount as bonus and since, the aforesaid amount received by the assessee has no nexus to the sale price or the sale receipts, the same cannot be subjected to tax. 6. On behalf of the revision petitioner-assessee it is also contended that if at all the said receipts in the form of Bonus is to be subjected to tax, the same are liable to tax under the provisions of CST Act, 1956, as such receipts are relatable to sale of goods in the course of interstate trade and thus, can only be assessed under the provisions of CST Act, and would not be amenable to tax under the provisions of APGST Act. 7. On behalf of the revision petitioner-assessee it is further contended that though a specific plea is taken to the above affect before the Tribunal, the same has not been considered by the Tribunal in its correct perspective, and erroneously upheld the order made under the APGST Act. 8. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that though the petitioner-assessee claims the said proceeds are relatable to timely supplies received as bonus, since, the said additional consideration received as ‘bonus’ would have to be considered as premium for goods supplied would be liable to tax. 9. 8. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that though the petitioner-assessee claims the said proceeds are relatable to timely supplies received as bonus, since, the said additional consideration received as ‘bonus’ would have to be considered as premium for goods supplied would be liable to tax. 9. Learned Special Standing Counsel would further contend that since, the petitioner did not include the said turnover while filing its returns under CST Act, and on the other hand accounted for the said amount as other receipts in their balance sheet, the assessing authority had brought them to tax under the provisions of APGST Act, which order has been affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal, and thus, the same does not call for any interference, much less gives rise to any question of law. 10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 11. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid issue would show that the Tribunal had considered the aforesaid amount received by the petitioner-assessee as in relation to supplies made by it to its customers in the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra, and thus, being liable to tax under the provisions of CST Act. 12. The Tribunal while considering the issue as to whether the receipt of bonus from customers is directly relatable to sale of coal and noting that the same is nothing but deferred payment, observed that it is covered by the definition of Sale in Section 2(1)(g) of the CST Act. The Tribunal, however, failed to take note of the fact that the said receipts are brought to tax by the Assessing Authority in the assessment made under APGST Act, and not in an assessment under CST Act. 13. If only the assessing authority had brought the said receipts to tax in the assessment made under CST Act, the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Authority, which in turn confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority, can be held as valid. 14. 13. If only the assessing authority had brought the said receipts to tax in the assessment made under CST Act, the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Authority, which in turn confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority, can be held as valid. 14. Since, the Assessing Authority had brought the other receipts to tax under APGST Act, which order on being appealed by the petitioner/appellant, having been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which only considered as to whether the term “bonus” is relatable to sale of goods or not, which order of the Appellate Authority further being confirmed by the Tribunal ignoring the fact that, since, the said receipts are relatable to interstate sale, the same would be exigible to tax in assessment order made under CST Act and cannot be subjected to tax in an assessment made under APGST Act, inasmuch as the said receipts are not in relation to any sale of goods in the State. 15. Thus, this Court is of the view that the order of the Tribunal in confirming the levy of tax on receipts of bonus in relation to interstate sale in the assessment order made under APGST Act, cannot be sustained, as the same would amount to a single transaction of sale being subjected to tax partly under CST Act and partly under APGST Act. 16. Accordingly, the TREVC is allowed; the order of the Tribunal, dt.02.09.2010 in TA.No.361 of 2006, is set aside. No order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.