OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) These three revisions relate to the consecutive assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The firm M/s. C. K. Chemicals, Amroha (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of medicines. The firm M/s. C. K. Pharma Distributors, Amroha (hereinafter referred to as "the selling agent") was appointed by the assessee as its sole distributor, vide agreement dated March 31, 1977, though assessee's business continued from before. For the first time, the assessing officer took the view in respect of assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 that the agreement dated March 31, 1977 appointing the selling agent was a simulate arrangement or a subterfuge for reducing the sales to avoid the tax liability. The assessing officer took such a view for the reasons : (1) that trade discount was allowed at the rate of 33. 5 per cent to the selling agent; (2) that sales to the selling agent were shown at much lesser amount excluding the trade discount, whereas excise duty was paid on the assessable value which included the trade discount; (3) partners in the assessee-firm and the selling agent are common, that uncommon partners are related to the partners of the assessee-firm; (4) that expenses for the telephone used by the selling agent were debited in the books of the assessee; and (5) that whereas loss was shown by the assessee-firm, profit accrued to the selling agent. When the dispute was carried in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), he reversed the order of the assessing officer for the assessment year 1981-82 but for the remaining two years, the orders of the assessing officer were affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). The Sales Tax Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for the assessment year 1981-82 and reversed the orders of the assessing officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Tribunal found that both the assessee and the selling agent are separately registered for the purposes of sales tax and income-tax and that they are distinct from each other and, therefore, the selling agent cannot be said to be a colourable device. No doubt for taxation purposes, each year is separate and no argument can successfully be made that the selling agent was never taken to be a benami or the agreement dated March 31, 1977, was never held to be a simulate arrangement in the past and, therefore, the agreement cannot be held to be ingenuine for the instant years. This enquiry could be made any time by the department, as principle of estoppel does not operate in regard to fiscal laws. But the question is whether the assessing officer successfully established that the agreement dated March 31, 1977, is a colourable device to reduce the sales to avoid the tax liability and that the selling agent is a benami firm of the assessee. To find out the benami character, a thorough investigation is required and so many circumstances have to be seen. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a firm is of benami character, for example, constitution of the firm, actual services rendered by the firm, independent functioning of such firm, source of capital investment, whether such firm has full infrastructure to carry on the business, the business premises and whether the terms of the agreement were fully carried out, are germane for determining the benami character. Simply because the assessee-firm and the selling agent are separately registered, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the two firms are separate and independent of each other and that the selling agent is not benami, cannot be said to be logical. The Tribunal appears to be obsessed of the fact that both the assessee and the selling agent are separately registered. For creating a benami firm, one has to give a full shape to it and, therefore, mere fact of registration is not determinative factor whether a given firm is benami or otherwise. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be good and logical but still the question remains whether the conclusion reached at by the Tribunal is sustainable or not. From the material brought on record, I do not see any good reason to differ with the conclusion, reached by the Tribunal. No doubt a good deal of investigation could have been made in this case, but that having not been made and no convincing material having been brought on record to establish the selling agent as a benami firm, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal will have to be sustained. Simply because five partners are common in both the assessee-firm and the selling agent, it cannot be said that the selling agent is benami. Since giving of discount is a matter of agreement, no inference can be drawn from the high percentage of discount that the firm is benami, though it may be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration, if there are other adequate circumstances leading to the conclusion that the firm is benami. Excise duty was paid on the assessable value which included the amount of discount. Under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the duty of excise is chargeable with reference to the value which is the normal price of the goods, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade. So far the purposes of excise duty, the assessee could not take up the plea that the selling price was minus the discount. The selling price is the price which the goods if sold in wholesale trade, would normally fetch. For determining the benami character of the selling agent, assessable value taken by the Excise Department, to my mind, is not very relevant. Normally discount is given out of profits. It is the normal conduct of a businessman that ordinarily he will not agree to pay unbelievably high discount which may cause him nothing but loss. Instant case is not of the kind where there was a loss all through. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that profit accrued to the assessee despite the discount having been paid to the sellingagent at the rate of 33. 5 per cent in several years. What is the sale price, shown by the assessee; whether that included the discount or not - these are absolutely different questions having no bearing on the question of benami. Whether the discount is to be included in the sale price or excluded - this question is absolutely a separate one and it cannot be mixed up with the question whether the selling agent is benami. There is no finding by the assessing officer that the selling agent did not have its own independent infrastructure; that it rendered no service to the assessee under the terms of the agreement; that it had no capital of its own; that it functioned from the premises of the assessee and that the agreement was merely a facade. The only adverse circumstance pointed out is that the telephone expenses were debited in the books of the assessee-firm. The finding of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is that the telephone belongs to the assessee-firm and that the bill of the call booked by the selling agent on such telephone, was paid by the assessee. Such bill is said to be of Rs. 26. There is no finding that the business of the selling agent which is, undoubtedly of a very high magnitude cannot be carried out without a phone that the selling agent did not have its own phone and that the selling agent depended on the phone of the assessee for the entire business. No doubt, the selling agent who claims itself to be an independent and distinct from the assessee, cannot ordinarily use the phone belonging to the assessee in connection with its business. Even if a phone belonging to the assessee is put at the disposal of the selling agent, then the agreement should indicate as to on what terms and conditions, such phone was allowed to be used by the selling agent. But the finding of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is that the call booked by the selling agent on the phone of the assessee gave rise to the bill of Rs. 26 which was paid by the assessee. It is true that the assessee is under no obligation to pay the bill of the call being booked by the selling agent on the former's phone, but from the payment of the bill of paltry amount of Rs. 26, no inference can be drawn that the selling agent is benami. As there is no estoppel in the matter of taxation, the assessing authority is free to make full investigation into the matters relating to other years, but on the material brought on record for the years in question, I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, all the revisions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .;