RAJAGOPALAN, J.

The petitioner, assessee, is the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., with its head office at Jamshedpur and a branch at Madras. The assessee is a registered dealer within the meaning of Section 8-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the final assessment was made for the assessment year 1947-48 under rule 13(5) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Act, the assessee claimed that it was exempt from the payment of sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 52, 59, 112-15-0 on the ground that though goods of that value were sold by the company to the consumers in the taxable territory of Madras, the sale's themselves had been effected at Jamshedpur outside the taxable territory. It as common ground that as the law stood in the assessment year, the turnover of these sales did not fall within the purview of the charging Section 3 of the Act. But it is equally common ground that, though it was eventually established that the sales themselves were not liable to sales tax under the Act, the company had collected from the purchasers in Madras State amounts equivalent to the taxes that would have been payable, had the sales been liable to tax, that is, at 1% of the sale price up to 31st December, 1947, and at 1-9/16% from 1st January, 1948, to 31st March, 1948. Such collections were treated by the company itself as collections under Section 8-B(1) of the Act and were shown as such in the monthly returns submitted by the company under rule 13(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules for the purpose of provisional assessment under the rules. In the final assessment, the assessing authorities declined to order a refund of the amount computed on the turnover in question, Rs. 52, 59, 112-15-0. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the contention of the State, the such collections were payable to the Government under Section 8-B(2) of the Act and were not refundable to the assessee. It was the revision of that decision that the assessee sought in this petition before us.The finding of the Appellant Tribunal was :-

"If the sale were outside the State of Madras, no tax is leviable. But when tax has been collected in such cases, it is clear that such tax has to be regarded as an amount collected in excess of the tax, attracting thereby Section 8-B(2) of the Act. The object of Section 8-B(2) is obviously to see that no dealer is permitted to retain to himself any amount collected by way of sales tax. Ample opportunities were give to the appellants to show from whom they had collected the sales tax, so that he question of granting refund might be considered. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants are unable to furnish that information. Admittedly, sales tax was collected on sales which were not liable to tax, and the appellants are unable to state to whom the refund has to be made. In these circumstances, the amount collected by way of sales tax on the disputed turnover has to be retained by the Government under Section 8-B(2)." *

That the assessee acted in good faith in purporting to make the collections under Section 8-B(1) was never in dispute. Till the assessment was completed, the assessee company was not sure that it would not be called upon to pay sales tax on the turnover in dispute. Lists were filed before us showing the details of the amounts collected by way of tax from the purchasers in Madras. The sales by the company were mostly to the Railways and to certain Government departments. The amount refundable by the company to each purchaser can thus be easily ascertained and the learned counsel for the assessee represented that the company was ready to refund the amounts. It is rather unfortunate from the company's point of view, that this information was not placed before the Appellant Tribunal. But neither of these factors affects the determination of the real question at issue before us, is the company liable under Section 8-B(2) of t