ORDER After the provisional assessment which was the subject-matter of O.P. 66 of 1952 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the sales tax cases in The State of Travancore-Cochin and Others v. The Shanmuga Vilas Cashew-Nut Factory and Others ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 205; A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 333), which went up from this court, which judgment clarified the law on the matter. The agent of the petitioner appeared before the officer concerned and the result of the representation was that the officer found that the transactions in question were immune from the levy of sales tax as they constitute inter-State trade. The result was that the provisional assessment was not followed up by an order of final assessment, it having been declared that there was no case for assessment. The petitioner, therefore, won his case. By the time that order was made, however, the petitioner has actually collected some amounts from his purchasers as sales tax, a part of which he has already remitted to the State. There remains an amount of Rs. 629-14-9 still due to be remitted to the State. Notice demanding remittance of that amount was issued to the petitioner on 17th March, 1953, which is produced before Court by the petitioner along with the application. It is marked Exhibit A. It is this notice that is shown in the application as the cause of action and the application and the affidavit proceed as though that was an order of final assessment made upon the petitioner, which, in fact, there was not. What there was, was a declaration of the immunity of the transactions from liability to sales tax which was provisionally made and which was, therefore, vacated, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The notice demands merely the deposit of the amount in the possession of the petitioner having been collected by him by way of sales tax from his customers for and on behalf of the State. The notice demands merely the deposit of the amount in the possession of the petitioner having been collected by him by way of sales tax from his customers for and on behalf of the State. Section 11, clause (2), of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (XI of 1125) provides that, "(2) Every person who has collected or collects any amount by way of tax under this Act or after the date prescribed under the proviso to sub-clause (1) shall pay over to Government all amounts so collected by him if they are in excess of the tax, if any, paid by him for the period during which collections were made; and in default of such payment, the amounts may be recovered as if they were arrears of land revenue." Rule 8, sub-rule (8)(ii), enacts that, "(ii) He shall pay in full the amount or amounts collected by him by way of tax or taxes to the Government on or before the 1st May of the year succeeding that in which such collection is made." The notice (Exhibit A) is in a form prepared under the said rule 8. The liability to pay the State the tax collected by the petitioner is thus obvious and it is gratifying to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not find his way to disputing that liability. The result is that the petition is one that was presented on a misapprehension as to the import of the notice served on the petitioner. Had the notice been properly understood this petition would not have been filed. The original petition is dismissed with costs and advocate's fee which I fix at Rs. 50. Petition dismissed.