M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) This revision petitioner by the dealer is directed against an order dated August 20, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The proceedings relate to a matter more than two decades old, i. e. , the assessment year 1970-71. The revisionist is a distillery and, inter alia, manufactures rum and the dispute between the parties is about only one sum of Rs. 15,35,357 that according to the department might have been paid by the revisionist as excise duty on 1,00,800 bulk litres of rum. The question is whether the dealer suffered this sum of Rs. 15,35,357 by way of excise duty and if so whether the same should be included in its turnover. The aforesaid quantity of rum was exported by the dealer out of Uttar Pradesh and was supplied to the defence department. The rum supplied to defence department is exempt from excise duty but the department assumed that some rum might have been lost in transit on which the revisionist might have had to pay excise duty. While exporting sum out of the State of Uttar Pradesh for supply to defence department a dealer was required to executive a bond out of which excise duty payable if any could be realised. Since the dealer had not been able to establish that no amount was realised on account of excise duty from the bond, the assessing officer included aforesaid sum of Rs. 15,35,357 in the revisionist's turnover. By an order dated March 11, 1977, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) allowed the revisionist's appeal and restored the matter to the assessing officer observing that the possibility of some transit loss cannot be ruled out and that it was the burden of the dealer to show that the bond amount had been fully realised. He, therefore, directed the assessing officer to make necessary enquiries. Thereafter the assessing officer held that it was established that there was no basis to include the sum of Rs. 15,35,357 in the turnover. Against the assessing officer's order, the Commissioner filed a revision petition before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, which on the establishment of the Sales Tax Tribunal was converted to second appeal No. 144 of 1979 in which the impugned order was passed. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer did not make any proper enquiries and his approach was cryptic and evasive. It observed that it was clear that excise duty was payable and was paid by the assessee. The Tribunal has REFERRED TO certain enquiries which the Sales Tax Officer (S. I. B.) is said to have made. The Tribunal, therefore, felt that there was no alternative but to remand the case to the assessing officer for proper and exhaustive investigation on the subject and that if need be the excise authority may be summoned to confront whether any excise duty on rum was paid or not. The Tribunal further observed "that if no excise duty was paid, naturally, there would be no question of any addition but if some excise duty was paid as appears to be the case, it shall have to be added to the turnover". It was also contended before the Tribunal that this matter has become final between the parties and, therefore, could not be reagitated before the Tribunal. This contention was also negatived by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the matter had become final and, therefore, cannot be re-agitated before the Sales Tax Tribunal. This contention in my view has no force. By the order dated March 11, 1977 the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had remanded the matter to the assessing officer for further investigation as to whether there was any wastage during transit and whether any excise duty was charged on the aforesaid quantity of rum. Therefore, learned A. C. J. 's order did not conclude the matter. Thereafter the assessing officer accepted the dealer's contention and did not include the aforesaid amount in the turnover of the revisionist. Against the assessment order the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision before the Additional Judge (Revision), Sales Tax, which was converted into a second appeal on the establishment of the Sales Tax Tribunal and abolition of the post of Judge (Revision ). It was not even contended that the revision and consequent second appeal were not maintainable in law. Therefore, the matter did not conclude and the Sales Tax Tribunal had jurisdiction to remand the matter again to the assessing officer if it is felt that proper enquiries were not made. The learned Counsel for the revisionist however, raised a new point and by virtue of the powers contained in section 11 (4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, I allowed the same to be raised. The question of law raised by the revisionist is that the disputed amount of Rs. 15,35,357 could not be included in the turnover of the dealer-revisionist as the same was not charged from the purchaser, i. e. , the canteen stores department of the Government of India and that whether or not the revisionist was burdened with the aforesaid amount of excise duty was entirely irrelevant. This contention has force and it appears that the Tribunal misconstrued the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 277; 1985 UPTC 747. That was a case in which the dealer had not paid the excise duty itself but had asked its customer to pay the same. The honourable Supreme Court held that excise duty was a burden on the dealer-manufacturer and simply because by a devise the same was paid by the buyer it cannot be excluded from the turnover of the manufacturer. This authority does not lay down that the turnover of a seller can be more than the cost price of the goods to the buyer or that the excise duty even if not charged from the buyer would still be included in the turnover of the seller. This however, is the impression that the Tribunal seems to have carried. It is basic law that the sales tax can be charged only on the amount of the price that the buyer of the goods pays to the seller of the goods either directly or indirectly. An amount that has not gone into the cost of the purchase by the buyer can never be included in the turnover of the seller. "sales price" has not been defined in the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 but there is a definition thereof in section 2 (h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with that definition the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13; 1979 UPTC 37 observed as under : " This definition is in two parts. The first part says that 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods. Here, the concept of real price or actual price retainable by the dealer is irrelevant. The test is, what is the consideration passing from the purchaser to the dealer for the sale of the goods. It is immaterial to enquire as to how the amount of consideration is made up, whether it includes excise duty or sales tax or freight. The only relevant question to ask is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer as consideration for the sale and not as to what is the net consideration by the dealer. Take for example, excise duty payable by a dealer who is a manufacturer. When he sells goods manufactured by him, he always passes on the excise duty to the purchaser. Ordinarily, it is not shown as a separate item in the bill, but it is included in the price charged by him. The 'sale price' in such a case could be the entire price inclusive of excise duty because that would be the consideration payable by the purchaser for the sale of the goods. True, the excise duty component of the price would not be an addition to the coffers of the dealer, as it would go to reimburse him in respect of the excise duty already paid by him on the manufacture of the goods. But, even so, it would be part of the 'sale price' because it forms a component of the consideration payable by the purchaser to the dealer. It is only as part of the consideration for the sale of the goods that the amount representing excise duty would be payable by the purchaser. There is no other manner of liability, statutory or otherwise, under which the purchaser would be liable to pay the amount of excise duty to the dealer. And, on this reasoning, it would make no difference whether the amount of excise duty is included in the price charged by the dealer or is shown as a separate item in the bill. In either case, it would be part of the 'sale price'. So also, the amount of sales tax payable by a dealer, whether included in the price or added to it as a separate item, as is usually the case, forms part of the 'sale price'. It is payable by the purchaser to the dealer as part of the consideration for the sale of the goods and hence falls within the first part of the definition. This position is now well-settled as a result of the decision of this Court in George Oakes (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1961] 12 STC 476 (SC), where the view taken by the Madras High Court is Sri Sundarajan and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 STC 105 was approved. " The honourable Supreme Court observed that the test is, what is the consideration passing from the purchaser to the dealer for the sale of goods and it is immaterial to enquire as to how the amount of consideration is mad up. The honourable Supreme Court emphasised that the only relevant question to ask is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer as consideration for the sale and not as to what is the net consideration retainable by the dealer. Therefore, on the same analogy it is totally irrelevant as to what is the cost of goods to the selling dealer. What is relevant is only the price that he gets from the purchaser of the goods. In the case before us there does not seem to have ever been any doubt that the price of the aforesaid quantity of rum as paid to the dealer-revisionist by the canteen stores department was already included in its turnover. The department had right from the beginning been treading on a wrong path by trying to find out whether the dealer had paid excise duty or not. The excise duty paid was an expenditure and it could not be included in the turnover. What could be included in the turnover was only the real sale price realised by the revisionist. Since the department has never doubted that the price paid by the canteen stores department had been included by the dealer in its turnover, its line of enquiry was entirely misconceived and misdirection. The Tribunal in remandling the matter again to the assessing officer has only perpetrated that misdirection instead of setting the department to the right path. For the above reasons, the Tribunal's order is unsustainable and setting aside the same, it is ordered that the department's second appeal No. 144 of 1979 for the assessment year 1970-71 in so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 15,35,357 shall stand dismissed. The revisionist will get his costs of this revision from the respondents. Revision petition stands allowed. Petition allowed. .;