Wheat bran and bran flakes are exempt from tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the "administrative charges" collected by the appellants/assessees do not form part of the taxable turnover.

VENKATASWAMI, J.

Though two different assessees are involved in these three appeals, they are disposed of together by this common judgment in view of the fact that the questions of law raised in these three appeals are similar and learned counsel appearing for the appellants/assessees addressed common arguments.

2. The two questions that arise for consideration in these cases are as under : (1) Whether wheat bran and bran flakes will fall under an exemption notification issued under section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") under the heading "cattle feed", namely, rice bran or wheat bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams but excluding ....... (omitted as unnecessary) and (2) Whether the amounts shown separately under the heading "administrative charges" in the sale bills of the appellants are not includible in the taxable turnover

3. As a representative case, the facts in T.C. No. 1099 of 1980 may now be noted. This case relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessees are flour mills. They reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 49, 75, 580.90 and Rs. 25, 48, 529.21, respectively. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mannadi (West) determined the total turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act after excluding the turnover under "inter-State sales" at Rs. 30, 58, 838 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 26, 04, 716. In arriving at the above figures, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mannadi (West), excluded a turnover of Rs. 5, 09, 990 representing sales of wheat bran and bran flakes, on the strength of exemption notification dated March 4, 1974, as amended during the relevant assessment year. However, rejecting the claim of the assessees, that a sum of Rs. 30, 379.92 represented "administrative charges" and that will not form part of the taxable turnover, the assessing authority included the same in the taxable turnover. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the "administrative charges" in the taxable turnover, the assessees preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority accepted the claim of the assessees and excluded that part of the turnover from the taxable turnover. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has explained the circumstances under which such "administrative charges" were incurred by the assessees and justified such exclusion.

4. The then Board of Revenue, while perusing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, found that the exclusion of the "administrative charges" from the taxable turnover was not right and also found that the assessing officer went wrong in excluding the turnover representing the sales of wheat bran and bran flakes. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the assessees requiring them to show cause why both the abovesaid turnovers should not be included in the taxable turnover. Overruling the reply submitted by the assessees, the Board of Revenue confirmed the view taken by it in the notice, and consequently, revised the assessment order as well as the order of the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, the assessees have filed T.C. No. 1099 of 1980. Excepting the fact that in T.C. Nos. 305 and 306 of 1981 no sales of bran flakes are involved, and figures differ on the sales of wheat bran and "administrative charges" and also the assessment year is 1976-77, the other circumstances are the same in T.C. No. 1099 of 1980.

5. We may at once make it clear that no argument was advanced before us regarding the competency of the Board of Revenue to reopen the assessment order when the same was subjected to a first appeal and the concerned appellate authority passed final orders while initiating suo motu action to revise the order of the first appellate authority, though such a question was raised before the Board of Revenue.

6. Mr. V. P. A. Abdul Hakkim, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in T.C. Nos. 305 and 306 of 1981 and Mr. K. Mani, the learne