- (1.) SIMILAR question of fact and law is involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions, hence, they are being disposed of together by a common order. Writ Petition No. 1171 (M/b) of 1992 relates to the assessment proceedings for the years 1988-89 to 1990-91 and realisation of sales tax for the assessment year 1987-88. Writ Petition No. 129 (M/b) of 1993, pertains to realisation of sales tax for the assessment year 1987-88 and further proceedings for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92. Writ Petition No. 5226 (M/b) of 1993 relates to the assessment proceedings for the year 1991-92. Writ Petition No. 79 (M/b) of 1993 pertains to the assessment proceedings for the year 1992-93 whereas, Writ Petition No. 1552 (M/b) of 1994 relates to the assessment proceedings for the years 1985-86 to 1990-91. The question raised is whether the subsidy allowed on fertilizer by the Central Government is liable to be included in the "turnover" as defined in section 2 (i) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the records carefully. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the present cases have sought a writ of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from assessing, levying, imposing or recovering any amount of sales tax on the amount of subsidy given by the Government of India and also restraining the opposite parties from imposing any tax on the petitioners on the amount of subsidy for various assessment years as mentioned above. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question which has been raised in the aforesaid writ petitions, has already been considered by this Court sitting at Allahabad in various writ petitions which have been allowed. A reference has been made to the decision in the writ petition namely, Writ Petition No. 659 of 1990 Natraj Organics Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Muzaffarnagar decided on August 30, 1990, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 841 of 1990 Jay Shree (Magarwara) Fertilizer and Chemicals, Magarwara, Unnao v. State of U. P. decided on November 10, 1994 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1296 of 1994 Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Limited, Annla, Bareilly v. State of Uttar Pradesh decided by Division Bench of this Court on December 8, 1994. In these judgments reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punja Gutta Division, Hyderabad [1991] 83 STC 129 and Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad [1992] 85 STC 552. On the basis of the judgments rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was held by this Court that the subsidy given by the Government of India could not be covered within the definition of turnover as defined under section 2 (i) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act now Trade Tax Act which is substantially the same as given in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The learned Standing Counsel has argued before this Court that the judgment delivered by this Court cannot be held to be good law in view of the definition given in the new Act. According to the learned Standing Counsel the definition given in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not tally with the definition given in the U. P. Sales Tax Act, now Trade Tax Act. According to the learned Standing Counsel in the definition given in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the words "total amount charged" have been used while in the U. P. Sales Tax Act the words "aggregate amount" have been used. According to the learned Standing Counsel the word "aggregate" has different meaning and it cannot mean to convey the same expression. Word "aggregate" has been defined in Websters' New World Dictionary Third College Edition as under : " gathered into or considered as, a whole, total. " In the same dictionary the word "total" has been defined as under : " constituting the whole, entire, complete, utter, the whole amount or number, sum, aggregate. " Thus, we find that words 'total" and "aggregate" convey same meaning and they are not used in different sense but are used in same sense as meaning the whole. Therefore, in view of the definition of the words "aggregate" and "total" used in two Acts, it cannot be said that the meanings as assigned to these words are different and do not mean the same things. It is said that the Government of India introduced a scheme of retention prices for units in the nitrogenous fertiliser industry with effect from November 1, 1977 and this scheme was introduced with a view to ensure a reasonable return on investment and to facilitate the healthy development and growth of the fertiliser industry. The learned counsel has tried to convince the court that in the present case the subsidy on manufacture of fertilisers is paid to the various manufacturers by the Government of India directly and the rate of subsidy is decided by the Government on the basis of costs of manufacture of fertilisers including cost of capital. In the present case the word "sale" has also been defined in section 2 (xxi) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (Trade Tax Act) as meaning every transfer, whether in pursuance of a contract or not, of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or for other valuable consideration. The sale of goods is a contract whereby, the seller transfers or agrees to transfer property in goods to the buyer for a price as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In the present case, the price which is agreed to be paid is between the purchaser and seller. The amount of subsidy which the Government gives to the manufacturing unit cannot be included in the price which is paid by the purchaser. As held in Madras Fertilisers Limited v. Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) reported in [1994] 95 STC 134 (Ker), the sale is a bilateral transaction which stems out of a contract between the seller and the purchaser. An essential ingredient of a sale is "price". Fixation of the price is a matter of agreement between the parties. The parties have agreed only to pay the price which is agreed between them and no further amount is paid by the purchaser for purchase of the fertiliser. In the same judgment in para 11, it has been mentioned that the subsidy is paid for the benefit of the public, to keep the prices at a reasonable level and at the same time to ensure a reasonable return on investment to the units and not as consideration for the sales effected by them. In view of the definition of sale and interpretation put by the Kerala High Court, it will be clear that the price which has to be paid by the purchaser can only be treated an amount received by the seller from the purchaser, meaning thereby, the amount of subsidy granted by the Central Government or State Government cannot form part of the turnover as defined in the U. P. Sales Tax Act, now Trade Tax Act. We do not agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel. In view of what has been said above, it is held that the subsidy given by the Government of India to the petitioners cannot be covered within the definition of turnover as defined under section 2 (i) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, now Trade Tax Act. In view of this, all the aforesaid five writ petitions are hereby allowed. Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, concerned is restrained from imposing or realising any tax from the petitioners on the amount of subsidy for the aforesaid mentioned various assessment years both under the U. P. as well as Central Sales Tax Acts. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed. .;