A. N. GUPTA, J. - (1.) Since all these four sales tax revisions arise out of single judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dated August 22, 1991, they are being disposed of by one judgment. The matter relates to the assessment years 1982-83 (both Central and U. P.) and 1983-84 (both Central and U. P. ). During these years the assessee-applicant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tractors under the brand name of "eicher", tractor parts and accessories. The assessee had its three manufacturing units outside Uttar Pradesh and was bringing goods for sale in U. P. on stock transfer basis. The applicant had an incentive scheme in operation under which a dealer was entitled to remission in the price provided the sales at the end of the month were above minimum qualifying level. The incentive was payable from Rs. 150 to Rs. 350 per tractor depending upon model of the tractor and the number of tractors sold in a particular month. The scheme was operated in the manner that the applicant was billing its dealers for the full price. It was maintaining a running account of its dealers. If at the end of the month purchases made by a particular dealer from the applicant exceeded minimum qualifying level, the applicant was crediting the running account of the dealer with the incentive amount of Rs. 150 to Rs. 350 per tractor purchased. The authorities below including the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since this incentive related to the tractors and not to the sale price, the applicant was not entitled to reduce its taxable turnover by the incentive granted by it to its dealers. One of the points for consideration in these revisions is about this incentive money which comes to Rs. 6,24,230. 84 for the assessment year 1982-83 (U. P.) and Rs. 2,82,042. 70 for the assessment year 1983-84 (U. P. ). The applicant had taken out one open insurance policy to cover those goods in transit which were required to be insured by its purchasers. The applicant was paying insurance charges to the insurance company in lump sum and was charging from the purchasers who asked for the insurance cover at 1 per cent. The authorities below included the amount of insurance premium collected by the applicant at 1 per cent in the taxable turnover of the applicant. The same has been challenged by the applicant in these revisions. The third item relates to the Material Service Performance Security Deposit ("m. S. P. S. D. ", in short) and Labour Service Performance Security Deposit ("l. S. P. S. D. ", in short) collected by the applicant from its dealers in every bill in respect of sale of tractors made by it. The authorities below included the same in taxable turnover of the applicant which had been disputed by the applicant by means of these revisions. The next item relates to "c" forms which is in two parts. One part relates to those "c" forms which were found defective by the assessing authority and other part which was given up by learned counsel for the applicant, relates to the filing of two "c" forms at the stage of Tribunal. The last item relates to the liability of payment of interest for not paying the full tax due along with the return inasmuch as the applicant did not deposit the tax on the items mentioned above regarding which adjudication has to be made in these revisions. Before dealing with the money involved in the incentive scheme of the applicant, it will be profitable to turn to some of the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Section 2 (h) defines "sale", the relevant portion of which runs as follows : " (h) 'sale', with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods (otherwise than by way of a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge) for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes. " Section 2 (i) of the Act defines "turnover" with its explanation as follows : " (i) 'turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or are sold, by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his account or on account of others, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration : Explanation I.- Omitted by U. P. Act 12 of 1979 with effect from June 1, 1975. Explanation II.- Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed in this behalf, - (i) the amount for which goods are sold or purchased shall include the price of the packing material in which they are packed and any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold, at the time of or before the delivery thereof, other than cost of freight or delivery or cost of installation or the amount realised as sales tax or purchase tax, when such cost or amount is separately charged; (ii) any cash or other discount on the price allowed in respect of any sale and any amount refunded in respect of articles returned by customers shall not be included in the turnover; and (iii) where for accommodating a particular customer, a dealer obtains goods from another dealer and immediately disposes of the same without profit to the customer, the sales in respect of such goods shall be included in the turnover of the latter dealer alone;" Rule 44 relating to determination of turnover of sales framed under the Act is also material, relevant part of which reads as under : " Rule 44. Determination of turnover of sales.- The tax under section 3 and sub-section (2) of section 3-D shall be computed on the net turnover of sales. In determining the net turnover of sales, the amounts specified below shall be deducted if they are included in the gross turnover - (a) all amounts allowed as discount, provided that such discount is allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or is in accordance with the terms of the contract or agreement entered into a particular case, and provided also that the accounts show that the purchaser has paid only the sum originally charged, less the discount;" It may also be mentioned here that under Notification No. ST-2-5785/x-10 (1)-80-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated September 7, 1981, issued under section 3-A of the Act the sales of tractors and parts, accessories and attachments thereof, other than tyres and tubes, have been made taxable under entry No. 51 at the point of sale by manufacturer or importer at 6 per cent. Since the applicant is an importer so far as U. P. sales are concerned, he is covered by the said entry. As mentioned above, the applicant was granting incentive to its dealers at the rate of Rs. 150 to Rs. 350 per tractor depending upon the model of the tractor and the number of tractors purchased per month at the end of the month. The modus operandi was that initially the applicant was billing its dealers with the full price of the tractors and if at the end of each month it was found that the dealer had purchased the tractors from the applicant beyond a prescribed limit, the applicant shall credit to running account of its dealers with the incentive money. The authorities below included the incentive money also in the total taxable turnover of the applicant on the ground that the incentive was being granted per tractor and not on the price of the tractor. For this purpose the Sales Tax Tribunal referred to the definition of "turnover" as given in section 2 (i) of the Act. Clause (ii) of explanation II provides for deduction of discount on the price allowed by a seller. The Tribunal was of the view that since deduction of discount was permissible only on the price, the applicant was not entitled to deduction as incentive given by it was per tractor. In my opinion, the Tribunal committed an error as it failed to notice the decisions given by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in this regard. The Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 has held that any concession in price by way of incentive with a view to promote one's own trade does qualify for deduction as a discount. Although the matter related to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act but the provisions of that Act so far as this point is concerned, is in pari materia with the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. This Court in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited [1993] 90 STC 23 has held that even if the discount is given per unit it is deductible from the total taxable turnover of an assessee because discount is given in various shapes and in various manners. It was a case of sale of fertilizers, and the assessee had given discount at Rs. 20 per metric ton on the sale of urea and at Rs. 25 per metric ton on the sale of N. P. K. grade. According to the scheme, credit memo was prepared in the name of the buyers at the end of each quarter in respect of the aforesaid discounts and instead of discount given in cash, share certificate was being issued for that sum to the purchasers. The assessee claimed that it was a case of discount which cannot be included in its taxable turnover and it was upheld by this Court. The last case on the point is another decision of this Court given by the Division Bench in the case of Shri Baidya Nath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow [1970] 26 STC 171. It was a case of annuity, i. e. , discount was being calculated at the end of the year and was being given at the rate of 2 1/2 to 10 1/2 per cent on the sale price provided medicines were being purchased beyond a prescribed limit. From these decisions it comes out that a discount can be given by way of deduction in the price as expressed in terms of percentage or it may be given per unit or per ton. It may be given immediately at the time of sale or may be given thereafter if the incentive relates to the total sales made per month, per quarter or per year. In view of this, it is held that the applicant was entitled to get deduction in respect of the incentive paid by it to its dealers. Now coming to the insurance charges collected by the applicant from its dealers, it has been established from the evidence on record that the applicant was not charging this insurance amount from every dealer but was charging from those dealers who asked for insurance cover for the risk being covered during transit of the goods. The applicant has taken out an open policy from the insurance company and was paying fixed premium and in turn it was realising premium at 1 per cent from its customers, who asked for the insurance. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the applicant did not produce the insurance policy and did not furnish any evidence to show that on a specific request of the purchaser, the applicant got the goods insured. It came to the conclusion that the applicant had got its entire factory and the goods stored therein insured for which it was realising insurance charges from its customers. Ordinarily, finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is binding on this Court but in this case I find that the finding which has been recorded in this behalf, is perverse. The applicant had furnished several invoices which were before the Tribunal also, a perusal of which shows that the applicant had realised insurance charges from some of the customers whereas it has not realised the same from others. It clearly shows that the insurance charges were taken only from those customers who had asked for insurance cover. The amount involved is Rs. 13,766. 52, under this item out of a total turnover of about Rs. 15 crores and mere non-production of insurance policy cannot disentitle the applicant from getting the benefit which is available to it under the law. There is no dispute that the applicant had taken out an open insurance policy. Similarly, there is no dispute that at least in some cases the goods were covered for the goods under transit which means that the insurance charges levied by the applicant were in relation to the insurance of goods got done by the applicant for covering the risk during transit on the request of its buyers. The other point involved in these revisions is in regard to material service performance security deposit and labour service performance security deposit. A customer purchasing tractors of the applicant according to the terms offered by the applicant was entitled to 9 free services and replacement of some parts which were found to have manufacturing defects. Giving of free service and replacement of such parts was the liability of dealers on behalf of the applicant. It was urged by learned counsel for the applicant that it was receiving complaints from the customers that the dealers were not giving free service and were not replacing the defective parts and therefore, in order to provide satisfactory service to the customers, the applicant devised the scheme under which it was taking the said security deposits from its dealers in respect of each consignment of sale in every bill. It was refunding the amount to its dealers the moment it got an intimation in writing from the dealers by way of a coupon that the said dealer had given free service to the purchaser of the tractor. The applicant had furnished enough documentary evidence before the Tribunal to show that these security deposits were not a part of price but added subsequently and it was not included in the price which the dealer was expected to charge from the customers. The Tribunal did come to the conclusion that the applicant was refunding the security to its dealers on receiving a coupon as a proof of having done the free service but it included the said security deposit as part of sale price. In doing so, the Tribunal fell in error because the security deposits can never be part of the sale price and in any case it was to be refunded as mentioned above. Coming to "c" forms, the assessing authority rejected "c" forms covering sales of Rs. 1,75,295 during the assessment year 1982-83 and Rs. 2,25,528. 82 for the year 1983-84 on the ground that they were defective. The applicant had furnished a certificate of Commercial Tax Officer of Begu Sarai, Bihar and of all the firms which had furnished "c" forms. They were wrongly rejected and the learned Standing Counsel could not point out anything to the contrary. In view of this the applicant is also entitled to a proportionate tax reduction in this behalf. So far levy of interest is concerned since almost all the pleas of the applicant have been accepted, the question of charging any interest does not arise. No other point was argued or pressed on behalf of the applicant. In view of the above, it is held that the applicant is entitled to get the amount of incentive paid by it to its dealers, deducted from the total taxable turnover. It is further entitled to get the insurance amount deducted from the total turnover. Similarly, material service performance security deposit and labour service performance security deposit cannot form part of the taxable turnover. The applicant is also entitled to proportionate reduction in tax in respect of the defective "c" forms which were wrongly rejected. The applicant cannot be fastened with the liability of interest. With these findings revisions are disposed of. The Sales Tax Tribunal shall pass consequential order under section 11 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. Petitions allowed. .;