ORDER
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The assessee is the petitioner in this tax revision case. Out of the three disputed items of turnover, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the turnover of Rs. 3,95,450 relating to inclusion of sales tax in the turnover, in our view, rightly, in view of the judgment of the Court in Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer [1987] 65 STC 48 (SC). In respect of the disputed turnover of Rs. 1,24,361, relating to cancellation of the bills, a finding is recorded by the Tribunal holding that the cancelled bills did not form part of the turnover. This being a question of fact cannot be re-agitated in this tax revision case and it is also not pressed rightly so, by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Sri Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends, somewhat strenuously, that a sum of Rs. 1,98,227, part of the disputed turnover which relates to trade discount should have been excluded from the total turnover. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal discloses that the dispute in the T.R.C. relates to the assessment year 1980-81. The amount of discount, referred to above, was not paid in that assessment year, but was paid in an earlier assessment year, viz., 1979-80. As the amount in question did not relate to the relevant assessment year, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim. However, we endorse the observation of the Tribunal that the assessee may claim relief from the assessing authority.
3. Sri Venkatanarayana, however, contends that the Tribunal made an observation that the claim can be made by way of a revision, but, in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lakshmaiah Setty & Sons the petitioner cannot file any revision. We may point out that the word “revision” appears to have been used somewhat loosely by the Tribunal. What all the Tribunal meant was by filing a claim to reopen the previous assessment to which the trade discount relates to. That right is left open to the petitioner. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. T.R.C. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
4. Petition dismissed.