The main legal point established in the judgment is that any amount collected by way of tax, regardless of the actual tax liability on the sales, must be handed over to the State under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125.

M. S. MENON, J. - Paragraph 1 and 2 of the petitioner's affidavit sum up the facts of the case as follows :-

"1. I am the petitioner in the above original petition. I am a dealer in gunny bags, vegetables etc. My dealings are both within and outside the State. During the year 1951-52 the assessable turnover of my sales within the State was found by the 3rd counter-petitioner as Rs. 97,880-2-0 and was assessed to pay by way of sales tax an amount of Rs. 1,536-12-3 by proceedings dated 14th November, 1953. I have already paid the said amount.

2. By the same proceedings I was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,386 which I had collected from my customers on sales outside the State till 19th January, 1952, during the period for which the assessment was made. I preferred an appeal before the 2nd counter-petitioner against the order of the 3rd counter-petitioner dated 14th November, 1953. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 30th March, 1954."

and the prayer in the petition is for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the two orders mentioned above. The relevant portion of the order of the 3rd counter-petitioner dated 14th November, 1953, (Exhibit A), is in the following terms :-

"He has realised sales tax at 3 pies till 19th January, 1952, for sales outside the State. His only authority for the same is his Registration Certificate of this State. He has no Registration Certificate in Madras State where his goods have been sold. Rules lay down that all taxed realised on the strength of the Registration Certificate issued from this State has to be remitted into the treasury. Further it is not proper on his part to retain the sales tax of Rs. 3,386 realised by him for outside sales. Notice of demand will therefore be issued for payment of sales tax realised by him, viz., Rs. 3,386, on outside although the turnover viz., Rs. 3,51,148 is not assessable"

and the appellate order of 30th March, 1954, (Exhibit B), reads as follows :-

"The appellant is a dealer in empty gunnies, tins, vegetables etc. He was selling goods both within and outside the State. During the year 1951-52 the appellant has collected sales tax to the extent of Rs. 3,386 on inter-State sales. The Sales Tax Officer has demanded the tax so collected. This appeal is filed against the above demand.

Heard the advocate for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay sales tax to this State on sales outside the State under Section 286(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. According to the Supreme Court decision he is liable to pay the tax in question to the State of delivery only and that the tax was collected as a precautionary measure as the law was not certain then.

It is also contended that the Sales Tax Officer is not justified in demanding the tax under Section 11(2) of the Act, because Section 11 of the Act does not apply as this is not a collection under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. It is also submitted that the collection was made as a precautionary measure, and if it is not found due the amount has to be refunded to his customers, or if demanded, to the Madras State where the goods have been delivered for consumption in pursuance of the sale. The advocate has also referred to the judgment of out High Court in Velayudhan v. Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer, Perumbavoor ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 338), wherein it is decided that the tax collected under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act from his purchasers is immune from further levy of sales tax, as the collection is made by him for and on behalf of the State and his obligation is to make it over to the State on whose behalf he makes the collection. No part of the money collected by way of sales tax belongs to him.

Considering the facts of this case under appeal, the above ruling is more in favour of the Department than to the appellant, because the collections under reference were made by him for and on behalf of the S