and before us. When a form prescribed under the statutory Rule is issued, the contents therein binds the dealer who issues it and so much so, petitioner does not have a right to contend that the transactions against which the Form 25 were issued to the agents do not represent actual purchases. Further, the Tribunal after examining the terms of the agreement found that the purchase is at the cost and risk of the agent and the company takes over the responsibility over the goods only on delivery at the stockyard of the company. So much so, whatever is the arrangement made between the company and their agents for bifurcation of price, such as purchase cost paid to farmers/dealers, freight and cost incurred and margin paid by way of commission, the whole transaction is purchase by the company and the entire cost reimbursed by the petitioner to the agents, in our view, happens to be the purchase cost which is nothing but purchase turnover of the goods. In our view, the Assessing Officer was lenient in favour of the petitioner because he has only estimated 15% of the reimbursements over and above purchase cost reimbursed as part of taxable turnover to be added to purchase cost. Inspite of
