JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. S. MENON, J. - The question involved in this appeal is whether the sales tax collected from a purchaser by a registered dealer can be considered as a part of his turnover and thus assessable to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125. Subramonia Iyer, J., came to the conclusion that it was not possible to do so and this appeal is from his judgment - [1953] 4 S.T.C. 338 - negativing the contention of the State in O.P. No. 69 of 1952. The reasoning adopted by the learned Judge has since been quoted with approval by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar & Sons ([1954] 5 S.T.C. 88), wherein it was held that the amount collected by a registered dealer from a purchaser by way of sales tax did not form part of his turnover and was not liable to be taxed under the corresponding provision of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. 2. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the decision of the High Court of Madras has apparently been accepted as correct by that State by its choice of legislative action to confine the effect of the decision to the collections of tax subsequent to the 1st April, 1954. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill introduced for the purpose (Fort St. George Gazette, Part IV-A, Extraordinary, dated the 4th May, 1954) reads as follows :- "It has been the practice in the Commercial Taxes Department, in assessing a dealer to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, to include in his turnover amounts collected by him by way of tax under the Act. In its judgment, dated 7th January, 1954, the Madras High Court has held that such assessment and levy are ultra vires in so far as they are based on inclusion in the turnover, of amounts collected by way of tax. The assessments and levy were made in good faith and have to be legalized. In its judgment, dated 7th January, 1954, the Madras High Court has held that such assessment and levy are ultra vires in so far as they are based on inclusion in the turnover, of amounts collected by way of tax. The assessments and levy were made in good faith and have to be legalized. It is, at the same time, proposed to accept, with effect from the 1st April, 1954, the statement of the law made by the High Court and not to include in the turnover of a dealer, for purposes of assessment, amounts collected by way of tax subsequent to the 1st April, 1954. The Bill is intended to give effect to these objects." Such legislative conduct, however, whether it spells acceptance or abundant caution, will not in any way aid or abrogate our duty to interpret an enactment as it stands. 3. Rule 7(1) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, provides :- "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. 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." In the sub-rule as it originally stood the tax collected by a registered dealer was not one of the permitted items of deduction but by a notification dated the 31st March, 1951, the following clauses was added as clause (1) to the said sub-rule :- "All amounts of sales tax collected by the dealer." The amendment does not in terms apply to the present case as the period with which we are concerned is anterior to the date of the amendment; but it was contended by the State that the introduction of the amendment would itself indicate that but for such amendment the tax collected by a registered dealer would have been amenable to sales tax. We cannot agree. The amendment can mean no more that that in the opinion of the rule-making authority such an amendment was necessary either to clarify the position or to ensure an exemption. 4. Sales tax is a tax on turnover. We cannot agree. The amendment can mean no more that that in the opinion of the rule-making authority such an amendment was necessary either to clarify the position or to ensure an exemption. 4. Sales tax is a tax on turnover. The term "turnover" is defined in Section 2(k) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, as "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" and the sole question for determination is whether the tax collected by a registered dealer can be considered as a part of his turnover. We agree with the judgment under appeal and the Judges of the High Court of Madras in the case cited above that it cannot be so considered. 5. We are not concerned in this case with a registered dealer charging a composite or "tax included" price but one who collects separately the price for his commodity and the sales tax thereon. Section 11 of the Act provides :- "(1) No person who is not a registered dealer shall collect any amount by way of tax under this Act; nor shall a registered dealer make any such collection except in accordance with such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed : Provided that Government may exempt persons who are not registered dealers from the provisions of this sub-section until such date as may be prescribed. (2) Every person who has collected or collects any amount by way of tax under this Act on or after the date prescribed under the proviso to sub-clause (1) shall pay over to Government all amounts so collected by him of 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" and sub-rules (8), (9) and (10) of rule 8 read as follows :- "(8) A registered dealer may collect amounts by way of tax or taxes under the Act subject to the following conditions :- (i) He shall not collect any amount or amounts by way of tax or taxes under the Act at a rate of rates exceeding the rate or rates specified in Section 3 or 5 or notified under Section 6. (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. (9) The assessing authority may call for and examine the accounts of the registered dealer for the purpose of satisfying himself that the dealer has paid in full the amount or amounts collected by him by way of tax or taxes, as required by condition (ii) in sub-rule (8) : Provided that this power shall be exercised before the end of the year next succeeding that in which the collections were made. (10) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any amount or amounts collected by the dealer by way of tax or taxes have not been paid by him to the Government in any year as required by condition (ii) in sub-rule (8), the assessing authority shall issue a notice to the dealer in Form IV specifying therein the total sum so withheld by the dealer and the dealer shall pay such sum at the time and in the manner specified therein." These are definite provisions authorising a registered dealer to pass on his tax liability to the purchaser and in view of these provisions it will be incorrect to say that any collection made by way of sales tax in pursuance of the statutory privilege is a part of the dealer's price or turnover. Such collections cannot but be something different from and extraneous to the price charged by the dealer and the turnover assessable under the Act. 6. There are three reported cases other than the judgments under appeal and of the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar & Sons ([1954] 5 S.T.C. 88), in which the question of liability to tax on tax arose for consideration. The earliest is Bata Shoe Co., Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, West Bengal ([1949] 1 S.T.C. 193), where the question arose under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The earliest is Bata Shoe Co., Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, West Bengal ([1949] 1 S.T.C. 193), where the question arose under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. There is no provision like Section 11 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in that enactment and the conclusion of the Calcutta High Court was that the sales tax collected in such circumstances only augments the price of the article sold by the amount payable as tax on such a sale and that the total amount which a purchaser pays should be considered as the sale price for the purpose of assessment. Harries, C.J., however, was careful to observe :- "If the dealers were authorised to collect the sales tax from the purchasers, then the sale price would clearly be the amount paid less the sales tax" and what Section 11 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, and the relevant rules have done is to provide the necessary authorisation. 7. The decision of the Calcutta High Court has been followed by the Patna High Court in Kaniram Jankidas v. The State of Bihar ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 230), a case under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which repealed the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, now contains a provision similar to Section 11 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, namely, Section 14-A, inserted by Section 9 of the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948; but such a provision was unavailable in the Act with which the Court was concerned. 8. The Calcutta case has also been followed in Jethalal Virajlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 125), a decision of the Nagpur High Court under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, now cited as the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1947, which also contains no provision similar to Section 11 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125. 9. In the judgment under appeal it is stated that the collection of sales tax : "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." 10. The primary liability to pay the sales tax to the State in a case like this is that of the dealer and what the statute does is not to enjoin a duty to collect but to extend a privilege of so collecting and a dealer will be well within his rights if he decides to waive the privilege and bear the tax. As to whether the mere factum of collection without any reference to the attendant circumstances will compel him to pay all the amounts collected to the State is not a matter for present determination. According to one commentary on the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sales Tax in Madras by N. R. Raghavachariar - Section 8-B(2) of the Madras Act corresponding to Section 11(2) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, postulates the following propositions :- "(i) A dealer cannot make an illegal collection, (ii) Any lawful collection by him should ultimately go to the Government, (iii) He cannot escape his liability to tax on the ground he has not collected, (iv) Even where he has not collected unless he can be said to have waived his right, his right to collect from the customer cannot be questioned, (v) If he has made illegal or excess collection from a customer the latter's right to a refund of it cannot be denied, (vi) The corresponding liability of the dealer to refund it to the customer cannot be obliterated by his paying the amounts collected to the Government, and (vii) The Government is not entitled to levy the illegal collection from the dealer thus depriving the customer of his right to get it from the dealer and/or Government." 11. In the light of what we have stated above the appeal must fail and we dismiss it with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 150. Appeal dismissed.