The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the sale price and the authority of the dealer to collect tax, as governed by the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

( 1 ) THE points at issue in these revision petitions are:

"whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the element of entry tax separately collected and billed by the assessee could not form the sale price of the goods for the reason of same having been collected under a separate statute?"

Alternatively,

"whether the amount of entry tax collected on entry of goods into the local area before its sale to the ultimate consumer can be treated as the presale value of the goods, when the assessee has passed on the same to the ultimate purchaser adding it to the sale price of the goods. ?"

( 2 ) TO answer the questions of law raised for consideration and decision of this Court, the facts in strp No. 102/1999 are noticed.

( 3 ) THE assessee is a Public Limited Company, a Government of Karnataka undertaking and is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('kst Act' for short) and central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('cst Act' for short), dealing in copper, copper sulphate, etc. For the assessment year 1993-1994, the assessee had filed its annual returns, declaring its total turnover and taxable turnover and also had claimed certain exemption and deductions on the sales tax collected separately in its invoices, transactions governed under CST Act and the entry tax collected on the sale of copper and allied products, on the ground, that it had not included the same on the sale price of the goods sold as it had not collected sales tax on this component of entry tax. The assessing authority being of the view that the entry tax component forms part and parcel of the sale price of goods sold by the assessee, proposed to reject the returns filed by the assessee as incorrect and proposed to levy sales tax and turnover tax on the entry tax component collect at the appropriate rate. Accordingly, the assessing authoritissued a pre-assessment notice directing the assessee to file its objections, if any, to the proposal made in the pre-assessment notice. The proposal made was objected to by the assessee - dealer by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of ANAND SWARUP MAHESH KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX. The assessing authority by his order dated 26. 2. 1996 while rejecting the objection of the assessee dealer has observed that the entry tax paid and collected separately in its sales invoices from the purchasers is a pre-sale expenditure and therefore, forms part and parcel of the sale price attracting sales tax under the Act.

( 4 ) THE appeal filed against the aforesaid order by the assessee-dealer came to be rejected by the first appellate authority by its order dated 5. 3. 1997.

( 5 ) THE assessee-dealer had carried the matter by way of second appeal before the Karnataka appellate Tribunal in STA No. 427/ 1997. The Tribunal relying on the law laid down by the apex Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case, (1980) 46 STC 477 and the observations made by this Court in KARNATAKA FOREST PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, S. T. R. P. Nos. 16 and 17/1988 dd. on 13. 3. 1992 has come to the conclusion that the entry tax collected by the assessee dealer separately in its sales invoices did form part and parcel of the taxable turnover of the assessee dealer and therefore, it directed the assessing authority to reframe the assessment order for the relevant assessment year, by giving deduction to the entry tax collected by the assessee dealer from the taxable turnover.

( 6 ) THE revenue being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 23 (1) of the KS Act.

( 7 ) SRI Anand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the revenue would contend that the entry tax paid by the assessee dealer is for causing entry of goods into local area and that forms pre-sale expenditure and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in giving a finding that the entry tax collected