The dealer, Kanpur Vanaspati Stores, carries on business in hydrogenated oil and washing soap. He also imports and distributes vanaspati as an agent of Malwa Vanaspati and Chemicals Limited, Indore.

For the assessment year 1957-58 the dealer filed returns of his turnover under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for successive quarters of the year. Together they disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 1,66,387.03 and a net turnover in the same figure. During the assessment proceedings a statement of account was filed by the dealer showing a net turnover of Re. 1,66,387.05 in respect of imported vanaspati and washing soap. He admitted that he had realised an amount of Rs. 10,207.54 as sales tax from his customers at the rate of one anna per rupee on imported vanaspati and six pies per rupee on washing soap. When the figures were worked on before the Sales Tax Officer the dealer admitted that the tax liability in respect of the turnover should be Rs. 10,339.19. The Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under rule 41(5) fixing a date for hearing to enable him to make an annual assessment. Repeated adjournments were taken by the dealer, and as the dealer was absent on the date ultimately fixed for hearing the Sales Tax Officer proceeded ex parts. He estimated the turnover of imported vanaspati at Rs. 58,00,000 and calculating the ate of tax at one anna per rupee computed the tax liability at Rs. 5,62,500. He estimated the turnover of washing soap at Rs. 6,152.50 and taking the rate at six pies per rupee he calculated the tax liability at Rs. 191.62. The total turnover was thus estimated at Rs. 58,06,132.30 and the tax liability was determined at Rs. 3,62,691.62. As the dealer had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,060.43 only towards the tax liability the Sales Tax Officer Issued a notice of demand for the balance, namely, Rs. 3,61,631.19.

The dealer preferred an appeal under section 9 of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal he admitted the turnover at Rs. 1,66,387.03. One of the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal was that the dealer, being an importer, was not a "successive" dealer within the meaning of section 3-A of the Act and therefore the higher rate of tax at single point was not attracted. It was said that it was liable to tax under section 3 at the multi-point rate at 3 pies per rupee only. The appellate authority at first returned the memorandum of appeal on the ground that the admitted tax had not been deposited but subsequently accepted it and ordered its registration. When the appeal came on for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the Sales Tax Officer that the appeal was not entertainable because the admitted tax had not been deposited. The objection was opposed by the dealer who pointed to the ground taken in the memorandum of appeal that it was liable to tax under section 3 at 3 pies per rupee only and referred to a pending writ petition in this Court in which a similar ground had been taken. It contended that upon the rate of tax admitted by it the "admitted tax" was covered by the amount already deposited by it. However, an application was also died by the dealer praying for time to deposit the balance in case the appellate authority held that for the purpose of the appeal the dealer was liable to deposit a larger sum as the admitted tax. The application was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the admitted tax had not been deposited on or before the date of being the appeal and there was no valid reason justifying the grant of further time to deposit the admitted tax. The appellate authority, in the circumstances, declined to entertain the appeal and it was dismissed.

The dealer then applied in revision and the revision application was also dismissed.

At the instance of the dealer the revising authority has made the instant reference inviting the opinion of this Court on the following questions :-

(1) Whether "admitted tax" is that which is found to be due on the net turnover declared by the dealer on