SHRIPAT RAO PALNITKAR, J.

I have had the advantage of perusing the two divergent judgments prepared by my learned colleagues, Mohd. Ahmed Ansari and Srinivasachari, JJ. After carefully considering the facts of the case, I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Srinivasachari, J., that the petition should be dismissed.

I need only refer briefly to the facts of the case. Detailed facts are given in the two differing judgments, and I need not repeat them at length.

The petitioner is a member of the Warangal Sabha Oil Mill-Owners' Association, who, in course of his business, purchased various quantities of groundnuts from several persons, including producers or agriculturists, who had grown groundnuts. It is abundantly clear that the purpose of buying the groundnuts was to extract oil therefrom. The petitioner alleged that he and the other members of the Oil Mill-Owners' Association, being registered dealers under the Hyderabad General sales Tax Act (which Act will henceforward be called the Act in this judgment), were and are being asked to pay the sales tax on their purchase turnover; that the said Association and its members, including the petitioner, wished to collect the said tax from the sellers or persons from whom they purchased and asked the Sales Tax Officer to render assistance for the collection of the tax; that the said Officer instead of rendering assistance, informed the petitioner and others, that they should not collect the tax from the agriculturists (from whom groundnut was purchased); that when approached, the Commissioner of Sales Tax also did not pay any heed to their request and took up the position that the sellers being agriculturists, were not liable to pay the tax and therefore the dealers were not entitled to collect the tax from them; it was alleged that the levy of the tax by the sales tax authorities was without jurisdiction and therefore a writ of certiorari in that effect be issued.

The main points upon which the petitioner relied may be detailed as follows : (i) It was argued that if the sales by the agriculturists or producers of groundnuts were not to be taxed, then the transactions of sale should be exempt and the purchase value of such transactions cannot be included in the purchase turnover of the applicant. (ii) If it be decided that there is nothing in the Act or the Rules (Rules under the Act, which will henceforward be termed as the Rules in this judgment) to exempt the first sales by agriculturists from the tax, and the sales transactions must be included in the purchase turnover of the applicant, then the applicant is entitled to collect the tax from his sellers. Also there will be no obligation on the petitioner to pay tax before its collection, (iii) It was also argued that the provisions of rule 5(2) of the Act contravened the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is now well settled that the sales tax is intended to be a tax on consumers, as opposed to and distinguished from an excise tax, which is a tax imposed upon producers and that the sales tax is collected from and through the agency of the dealers, who have been given powers under the Act to reimburse themselves by collection the tax from persons to whom they may sell the commodity taxed. In Madras Province v. Boddu Paidanna & sons ([1942] 1 S.T.C. 104; A.I.R. 1942 F.C. 33), the Federal Court has made the point very clear and it has been held that the sales tax is levied on the transactions of sale and the occasion for the levy of the tax arises when there is a sale of goods. In Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938, In re ([1939] 1 S.T.C. 1; A.I.R. 1939 F.C. 1 at page 7(c)), the nature of a tax on the sale of goods (sales tax) and a duty of excise has been fully discussed and therein it was observed :

"It is common ground that the Court is entitled to look at the real substance of the Act imposing it, at what it does and not merely what it