S. ANANDA REDDY, J.

This special appeal by the assessee is directed against the order, dated January 3, 1994 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (herein after referred to "the Act"), exercising the powers of revision, revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee-company was dealing in fertilisers during the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee-company has got a factory at Kakinada, East Godavari district for the manufacture of various fertilisers, which commenced its production in the year 1988. But, in order to establish the market to its products, the assessee-company imported certain fertilisers, such as Di-Ammonia Phosphate (DAP), Urea, etc., and sold through its distributors. For the assessment year in question, the assessee declared a gross-turnover of Rs. 38,48,09,511 and a net turnover of Rs. 31,76,66,874. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption of the turnover to the extent of Rs. 1,87,89,413, being the amount represented the discount allowed to various dealers by issuing credit notes. According to the assessee, the said amount of discount allowed to the customers was not realised by the dealer and therefore, the said amount did not form part of the turnover, as defined under clause (s) of section 2 of the Act, read with rule 6(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. However, the assessing officer found that the said claim is not allowable as the said amount is not allowed as a discount in the bills and hence computed as part of the turnover. However, on appeal, the appellate Deputy Commissioner, accepted the claim of assessee, following the decision of the apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 and also a decision of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd [1987] 65 STC 41. While allowing the claim of the assessee, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner accepted the claim of the assessee/dealer that the dealer had the practice of allowing certain quantity rebate at the end of the year on the basis of the quantity lifted by the respective customers and accordingly issued credit notes to this effect. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, on going through the proceedings of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as well as the consequential proceedings issued by the Commercial Tax Officer initiated revisional proceedings, exercising the powers under section 20(1) of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated November 18, 1993 was issued for which objections were filed by the dealer on December 30, 1993. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, negativing the claim of the dealer that the quantity rebate allowed, as a discount through the credit notes, was not allowable, as the assessee could not produce any scheme then in existence or any contract entered into with the dealers, or could site any evidence to show that it was the regular practise of the assessee in allowing such quantity rebate. Aggrieved by that, the assessee has come up in the present special appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has started business of importing and effecting the sales during the relevant year and in order to be competitive to sell its products, the assessee agreed with its customers, who are the distributors of the products, and accordingly granted the quantity rebate or discount, and the grant of such discount is also evidenced by the issue of the credit notes to the respective customers of the dealer. When once the evidence shows that the assessee had agreed for the grant of discount and the grant itself is evidenced by the credit notes issued by the dealer, there is no justification for the Commissioner to revise the