Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125 and as such he collected sales tax from his purchasers. The amount of sales tax collected was made the subject matter of a further levy of sales tax by the 1st respondent who is the Agricultural Income-tax and Rural Sales-tax Officer, Perumbavoor, rejecting the objection made by the petitioner. His appeal to the 2nd respondent who is the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax, was dismissed and the further resort by way of revision made to the Deputy Commissioner the 3rd respondent also yielded no better result. Hence this petition impugning the levy of sales-tax upon sales tax as ultra vires the powers of the officer under the Act. The 4th respondent is the State. The levy is sought to be sustained on the ground the amount covered by the sales-tax is comprised in the definition of "turnover" contained in Section 2 (k) of the Act which reads thus: "[k] 'turn over' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a dealer, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover." The second explanation to this definition is to the effect that: "[ii] the amount for which goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time or before the delivery thereof." Section 3, sub-section (4) reads thus: "[4] For the purpose of this section and the other provisions of this Act, turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed." Rule 7 provides for the deductions to be made from the gross turnover of the dealer to ascertain the net turnover for the purpose of levying sales-tax. There were originally only deductions enumerated in clauses (a) to (k) of rule 7, but on 31st March 1951 by a notification, another item (L) reading:- "All amounts of sales-tax collected by the dealer" was included in the category of deductions to be made. There were originally only deductions enumerated in clauses (a) to (k) of rule 7, but on 31st March 1951 by a notification, another item (L) reading:- "All amounts of sales-tax collected by the dealer" was included in the category of deductions to be made. From the provisions read and mentioned above, it is contended that the amount of sales-tax comes within the ambit of the definition "turnover" in section 2 (k) and therefore is liable to assessment of sales-tax. Sales-tax is leviable not upon the gross turnover but upon the net turnover and rule 7 (1) which has already been referred to expressly provides in the first portion that: "The tax or taxes under Section 3 or 5 or the notification or notifications under Section 6 shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer." The next sentence in that rule is that: "In determining the net turnover the amounts specified in clauses [a] to [k] shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer." The inclusion of the last category under Rule 7 (L) viz., "All amounts of sales-tax collected by the dealer" rather than being in favour of the State enabling it to impose the levy, is clearly against the possibility of such levy being made. The amount collected as sales-tax is to be deducted in ascertaining the net turnover on which alone sales-tax can be levied. The department appears to have relied upon this last category to justify the levy which, in my judgment, obviously indicates the contrary. There is no scope for any doubt in the matter. The sales-tax collected by the petitioner is immune from the levy of any sales tax as the collection was made by him for and on behalf of the State and his obligation was to make it over to the State on whose behalf he made the collection. No part of the money collected by way of sales-tax belongs to him. It cannot be said under section 2, clause (k) explanation (ii) that the sales-tax is the sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold. The dealer did nothing to the goods sold in order to enable him to earn the tax that is levied upon the sale. It cannot be said under section 2, clause (k) explanation (ii) that the sales-tax is the sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold. The dealer did nothing to the goods sold in order to enable him to earn the tax that is levied upon the sale. It is an obligation imposed by the State upon transactions of sale which liability is to be borne by the purchaser and the amount is to be collected by the seller not because he is entitled to it in his capacity as seller but because an obligation has been enjoined upon him to make the collection under the statute. In no view of the matter can it be said that the dealer is liable to further sales-tax upon the collections made. 2. The result is that the order complained of is ultra vires the powers of the authorities and it is hereby vacated and it is declared that the sales-tax collected by the petitioner is immune from levy of sales-tax. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner with counsel's fee which I fix at Rs. 50/- in view of the fact that the amount involved is only about Rs. 950/-. Allowed.