- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a division bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in Sales Tax Reference No. 263 of 1954 holding that the sales in question were not entitled to rebate under section 5 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act. The High court has given the following. facts, taken from the statement of case submitted by the Judge (Revisions) , Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow : "the assessee is a manufacturer of, and learn in, sugar in Uttar Pradesh. It entered into contracts of sale of sugar with certain persons' residing in Uttar Pradesh, who may be called the purchasers. The purchasers had previously entered into contracts of sale of sugar with their own customers residing outside Uttar Pradesh and it was to fulfil these contracts that they entered into contracts with the assessee for purchase of the required sugar from it. The terms of the contracts between the assessee and the purchasers are not stated in the statement of the case and the contracts have not been produced by the assessee in these proceedings. The assessee, under dispatch instructions received from the purchasers booked the sugar by rail to destinations outside Uttar Pradesh and the railway receipts were prepared in the name of the assessee as consignor and consignee both. The assessee prepared the bills in the names of the purchasers and on their paying them it endorsed the railway receipts in their names and gave them to them. The purchasers sent the railway receipts to their customers at the destinations. There was no contract between the assessee and the customers of the purchasers. For the assessment year 1948-49 the assessee was assessed to sales tax on the sale of sugar on the basis of its turnover for the previous year 1947-48. " Though the contracts are not produced, it is manifest from the said facts that the sales were only for actual delivery to customers raiding outside the State of Uttar Pradesh under despatch instructions received from purchasers in Uttar Pradesh. The facts also disclose that it must have been one of the terms of the contracts that the goods should be delivered to customers outside Uttar Pradesh, for the railway receipts were invariably prepared in the name of the assessee both as consignor and consignee and endorsed over in the names of purchasers against payment. On these facts the question is whether section 5 of the Act is attracted. Section 5 of the Act reads : "In respect of such manufactured goods as may be notified by the State government and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, a rebate of one-half of the tax levied on sales of 500 such goods for delivery outside Uttar Pfadesh shall be allowed if such goods are actually so delivered. "this court in M/s. Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. , Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh considered the scope of the said provision. Sikri, J. , delivering the judgment of the court, observed : "It seems to us that the object underlying section 5 is to encourage export of goods manufactured in Uttar Pradesh and notified under section 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As long as the contract evinces an intention to export and actual delivery is given to effectuate that intention the object of the Legislature to ensure that only real 'export sales' enjoy the rebate would be fulfilled. It seems to us that in the context of section 5 the word 'delivery' occurring in section 5 means : 'actual delivery'. "the learned Judge further held that communication of the place where actual delivery was to be given did not relate to the mode of performance but formation of the contract. In that view it was held that the revising authority was not right in holding that the sales dispute were not for delivery outside Uttar Pradesh. The only material difference between that case and the present one is that in the former the contracts were produced but in the latter they were not produced. But the pattern of the transactions disclosed by the aforesaid facts leaves no room for doubt that the contracts either provided for delivery of the goods to customers outside Uttar Pradesh or at any rate for such delivery pursuant to directions given by the purchasers. If so, the present appeal is directly governed by the aforesaid judgment of this court. Following that judgment we hold that the appellant is entitled to rebate in respect of the said transactions under section 5 of the Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs.;