Motilal B. Naik, J.In these special appeals the common question of law which arises for consideration is whether the Commissioner is correct in holding that the product "Aurofac" sold by the appellant is a medicine falling under item 37 of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and whether the Commissioner is correct in holding that the target discounts allowed by the appellant are not deductible.

2. Since common question of law arises in all these appeals, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. For better appreciation of facts, we trace the facts relating to Special Appeal No. 11 of 1996, which are as under :

The appellant is a registered dealer under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle. During the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 the appellant sold "Aurofac" which is poultry-feed prepared with rice husk/bran, cotton seed/maize oil and containing small percentage of "Auromycin Chlorotetracycline", which has some medicinal value. The product is sold in packed quantities of 1/2 kg., 10 kg. and 20 kg. bags and as the ingredients are very light, the volume of the feed package is normally of large volume. According to the appellant, the sale was initially reported as pesticides and animal health products. However, it was advised that the goods are poultry-feed within the meaning of item 80 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act, taxable at basic rate of 1 per cent only. Therefore, at the time of filing assessment, appellant contended that "Aurofac" is taxable at 1 per cent only.

4. The appellant complains that the Commercial Tax Officer by his orders dated March 2, 1988 (for the assessment year 1983-84), March 7, 1989 (for the assessment year 1984-85), December 13, 1989 (for the assessment year 1985-86), December 30, 1989 (for the assessment year 1985-86--CST) and March 12, 1991 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 under both Acts rejected the contentions of the appellant and levied the tax on "Aurofac" under item 37 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act, treating it as "drug and medicine". That apart, the appellant also claimed that the Commercial Tax Officer refused to deduct target discount allowed by the appellant to its customers based on targets achieved by them relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 under both Acts.

5. As against the confirmation of tax liability by the Commercial Tax Officer, the appellant claims to have taken the matter before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who agreed to the submissions and allowed the appeals on both the grounds by a common order dated June 28, 1991 following a decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. Alved Pharma (1989) 9 APSTJ 230 and State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Balaji Poultry Agencies, and held that "Aurofac" is poultry-feed liable to tax at 1 per cent basic rate. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also held that the target discounts allowed subsequent to the sales are to be allowed as discounts following the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 [LQ/SC/1983/59] and the decision of this Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., .

6. However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued show cause notice on May 15, 1995 proposing to revise the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and by order dated August 8, 1995 withdrew the concessions granted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner while confirming the orders passed by the original authority, i.e., Commercial Tax Officer. It is this order, which is challenged before us in these special appeals.

7. As indicated by us, since two common questions of law have been raised by the appellant before us, these appeals are heard and decided by the following common order :

On behalf of the appellant Sri Srinivasa Reddy submitted that this Court in Tax Revision case No. 137 of 2001 The State of A.P. Vs. Cynamid India Ltd., held that the classification with regard to "Aurofac" as determined by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was found on the basis of record and such finding of fact by the appellate authority should not have been interfered with by the higher authorities. Learned counsel stated that in view of the laws settled by this Court in the said decisions, the first issue whether "Aurofac" is to be treated as poultry-feed and is liable to be treated on par with the items brought under item 80 of the First Schedule, or item 37 of the First Schedule has been settled and, therefore, submitted that "Aurofac" is to be taxed as per entry 80 of the First Schedule.

8. Agreeing to the said submission, we hold that "Aurofac" is to be treated as poultry-feed and the appropriate tax to be levied on it is as per entry 80 of the First Schedule.

This takes us to the second question of law, i.e., whether the Commissioner is correct in holding that the target discounts allowed by the appellant are not deductible.

9. It is though contended by the learned Government Pleader that two abovementioned decisions cited on behalf of the appellant are not relevant for the purpose of these cases, we do not think that such a plea could be accepted by us. In The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., a division Bench of this Court, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam Vs. Motor Industries Co., Ernakulam, held thus :

"The dealer was in the practice of allowing discount every year to its stockists on the total purchases made by them from the dealer. The discount was given, not immediately on the making out of a bill, but at the end of the year when the accounts were settled. The departments contention in the revision was that having regard to the definition of turnover in Section 2(1)(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the explanation to the definition and also to Rule 6(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, the discount not having been given when the bill was made out or the goods sold, Rule 6(a) would not apply."

It is also held in that case that even where the discount was allowed at the end of the year when the accounts were settled, according to the normal trade practice, it was a permissible deduction from the turnover of the dealer.

10. The only submission made on behalf of the Revenue is that the ratio laid down in those decisions is not applicable to the facts of these cases. We are afraid, the reality is otherwise. Because the appellant showed certain deduction in the bills, this discount could be allowed, as held by this Court, even during the entire year at the time of settling the accounts finally. Having regard to the discussion and in the light of law laid down by the division Bench of this Court, we arc inclined to agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant and we hold that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not justified in denying the discounts claimed by the appellant, which discount was allowed by the first appellate authority.

11. In the result, the appeals are allowed on both counts as indicated above and the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner shall stand confirmed.