SETHURAMAN, J.

These three revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras. The assessments relate to 1971-72 to 1973-74. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in ultramarine blue. The assessee paid "discount" described as "quantity discount" under a scheme subject to periodical variations. It is stated that the quantity discount is allowed on the basis of customer's off-take in a specified period. The rate of discount and the quantity to be taken are indicated in the scheme. If the purchases during a half-year period January to June or July to December exceeded, for example, 12 cases of large, medium, small or temple blue or 24 cases of some other items, etc., there will be a discount of 1 per cent and if the sales exceeded certain higher quantities, then the discount was higher. Similarly, if the total purchases by a dealer exceeded Rs. one lakh in a year, 3 per cent discount was allowed and if the turnover exceeded that figure, higher percentages were given. The idea was to see that a customer gets an incentive to place orders and increase the volume of purchases. (The word "incentive" is on the facts to be understood in the sense that it is a present one and not for any business in future). As soon as the period is over, the purchases of each customer are totalled and credit notes were passed. In quite a number of cases, along with credit notes, cheques were sent.

The assessee claimed deduction of the discount. But the assessing authority rejected the claim on the ground that section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act did not authorise allowance of any discount other than cash discount. The assessment thus made was confirmed on appeal. When the matter was taken on further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, there was no dispute about the fact that it was a discount as understood in commercial parlance and that the discount was given in pursuance of an agreement between the parties. It was also consistent with the practice normally prevalent in the trade. The Tribunal therefore held that the conditions required by section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act were fulfilled in the present case and that the discount by way of credit vouchers or otherwise were eligible for deduction. At the close of the order the Tribunal pointed out :

"Even so the appellant is entitled to succeed for all the three years in the view that the price for consideration is the price after deduction of the discount and, in the alternative view, that the credit notes, in the circumstances of the appellant's case, are equivalent to 'cash discount' within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956."

The allowance of the deduction in the manner done by the Tribunal is challenged in the present revision petitions.

Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act defines "sale price" as meaning

"the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade" *

. The learned Government Pleader contended that the discount in the present cases cannot be said to be cash discount so as to fall within the scope of this provision. We are unable to agree with him. The expression "cash discount" appears to have been used in contradistinction to any other kind of discount. Supposing a dealer announces that a person purchasing 100 items of a particular article would be entitled to receive 5 more articles of same kind like a baker's dozen, the assessee cannot claim the value of the extra article paid to the purchaser as a discount. But, in the present case, there is a finding by the Tribunal to the effect that the price paid by the purchaser is after deduction of the discount. In other words, there is a tentative price paid by the purchaser which is subject to variation having regard to the quantum of purchases effected by him. In this view, it is unnecessary to go into