Judgment :- SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. The assessees are licensed tanners and they were taxed on a purchase turnover of Rs. 9, 83, 438-13-3 under rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. The contention before the Appellate Tribunal was that after tanning the skins, such tanned skins were exported outside the Indian Union and, therefore, they were entitled to exemption under Article 286 of the Constitution. This contention was rightly rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, and it is not now persisted in. But the short point, that has been raised by the learned counsel for the assessees, is that under rule 16 a tanner may be taxed on the purchase price only if his purchase was from a licensed dealer of untanned hides and shins, and if his purchase was only for the purpose of tanning by him. Until these two conditions were satisfied, the levy of the tax by the department could not be justified. As regards the second of the two conditions, it is stated that the language of the rule "sold to the tanner" and the language of the return Form A-4 prescribed by the rules in which the assessee is required to state the amount for which hides and skins were purchased for tanning by the assessee, as well as the exemption under sub-clause (3) of Section 16 undoubtedly support the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee for otherwise there is the possibility of successive tanners being taxed under this rule. If the tanner purchases from a licensed dealer and then sells it without tanning to another tanner, who is also a licensed tanner and so on, all these tanners could be taxed under this rule and unless a limit of the nature suggested, viz., that the purchase must be for tanning by the tanner himself, is imposed, the multipoint tax cannot be avoided. If, however, after the return is made by the tanner, showing the amount for witch he purchased untanned hides and skins for the purpose of tanning by himself, he changes his mind and exports them, and he happens to be the last dealer, he can be taxed, and it will be open to him to claim a refund of the tax already paid on the purchase price as provided by rule 15(5) of the Turnover and assessment Rules. No hardship therefore would be caused to the assessee if having purchased untanned hides and skins for the purpose of tanning by himself, he subsequently changes his mind and exports them or sells them to others.As regards the other contention, that the purchase must be from a licensed dealer, with reference to the turnover now in dispute, the assessee did not, no doubt, make any attempt either before the department or before the Appellate Tribunal to raise the question and substantiate the point by placing material before any of them. This was explained by the assessee as due to the fact, that until the law was settled by the Supreme Court and also by this Court that rule 16(5) was ultra vires, it was assumed that even purchases from unlicensed dealers by a tanner could be made liable, and that therefore there was the omission to draw the distinction between purchase form a licensed dealer and purchase from an unlicensed dealer. Having regard to the fact, that there was some confusion in the mind of the assessee and also the department till the law was settled recently, we think there is justification for the contention of the assessee, that his omission was not willful but was due to this circumstance. We do not think, if really the assessee has got a legitimate grievance, that he was taxed upon the amount for which under law he could not be legally made liable, he should be deprived of the opportunity to substantiate his case. We, therefore, think that, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the assessee should be given an opportunity by the Appellate Tribunal to prove, if he can, whether the whole or any portion of the purchase turnover on the purchase turnover on which he was assessed during the relevant year represents purchases made by him form dealers other than licensed dealers. For this purpose, we think it necessary to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remit the case back to them for disposal according to law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. As the assessees did not raise the point before, we think it just that they should be made liable to pay the costs of the respondent in this Court which we fix at Rs. 250.Case remitted.