JUDGEMENT : DIXIT, J. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under S. 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950). The facts are that the applicant firm was authorised by the Civil Supplies Department to import and sell sugar in Guna region for the year 1951-52. In that year the applicant-firm imported and sold large quantity of sugar. The total taxable turnover in respect of these transactions was Rs. 5,23,057-12-0. On this taxable turnover, the firm was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 32,691-2-0. The applicant-firm unsuccessfully contended before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Commissioner that the amount of Rs. 5,23,057-12-0 included an amount of Rs. 30,768-14-6 which it had realised from the purchasers by way of sales tax and it should have been therefore deducted in determining the taxable turnover. The applicant thus claimed that the taxable turnover was Rs. 5,23,057-12-0 less Rs. 30,768-14-6 that is Rs. 4,92,288-13-6. This contention was rejected and the applicant-firm was called upon to pay Rs. 32,692-2-0 as sales tax computed on the taxable turnover of Rs. 5,23,057-12-0. The assessing authority took the view that "turnover" as defined in S. 2 (q) of the Act meant the aggregate amount for which goods were sold and that no deduction on account of sales tax recovered by the firm could be made as the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of R. 51. This rule is as follows :- "A dealer liable to pay tax may collect sales tax from the buyer by including it in the sale-price but if he collects it separately as such, in addition to the sale-price, he shall issue a cash or credit memo, as the case may be, and keep a carbon copy thereof and also maintain a separate account in respect of the tax collected from day to day mentioning the number of the cash or credit memos, as the case may be." The Commissioner has found that the assessee firm issued cash memos but did not keep carbon copies thereof. On these facts the Commissioner has, at the instance of the assessee-firm, referred the following law points for decision. They are :- 1. that whether in the circumstances of the case the dealer can get the benefit of R. 51 without fulfilling the obligations conferred by it. 2. On these facts the Commissioner has, at the instance of the assessee-firm, referred the following law points for decision. They are :- 1. that whether in the circumstances of the case the dealer can get the benefit of R. 51 without fulfilling the obligations conferred by it. 2. whether the term "Taxable Turnover" as defined in S. 2 (p) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act includes the amount of Sales Tax realised by the dealer. 3. whether the amount of sales tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sale-price is liable to sales tax. 2. For answering these questions it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Under S. 3 (1) sales tax is payable on the taxable turnover of a dealer in respect of sales or supplies of goods effected in Madhya Bharat from the 1st day of May, 1950. Section 2 (q) defines "turnover" as "the aggregate amount for which goods are either sold or supplied for the payment received in respect of a contract by a dealer. We are not concerned with the provisos to S. 2 (q). Clause (i) of the explanation to this section says that "subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in that behalf, 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 of or before the delivery thereof". The definition of "taxable turnover" as given in S. 2 (p) is : "Taxable turnover" means that part of dealers turnover which remains after deducting therefrom, sale of goods, declared tax free, or for which no rate of tax has been notified, or which have already been subjected to sales tax under this Act." Rule 27 specifies the deductions that should be made from turnover in determining the taxable turnover. Rule 27 does not contain any direction for the exclusion of the amount of sales tax recovered by the dealer from the turnover. There is no provision to this effect in other rules or in the Act itself. It is plain from the definition of the "turnover" that the aggregate amount for which goods are sold would include every sum of money received by a dealer from the purchaser as a part of the sale-price. There is no provision to this effect in other rules or in the Act itself. It is plain from the definition of the "turnover" that the aggregate amount for which goods are sold would include every sum of money received by a dealer from the purchaser as a part of the sale-price. As there is no provision in the Act or the rules for the exclusion of the sales tax amount from the turnover in determining the taxable turnover, the amount of sales tax would necessarily be included in taxable turnover, where the dealer has recovered the amount as a part of the purchase-price. There is also no provision in the Act constituting a dealer liable to pay the tax under the Act as an agent of the Government for the collection of the Tax. Nor is there anything to indicate that the purchaser is primarily liable for the payment of the tax and that it is to be recovered from him. Under the Act it is the dealer who has been made liable to pay the tax. The dealer is required under S. 7 (1) to submit returns of his turnover and under S. 9 the tax is payable by a dealer on the basis of the assessment made in accordance with S. 8. Clause 3 of S. 9 lays down that if a dealer defaults in the payment of tax, the amount of the tax shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. Section 14 (1) of the Act prescribed inter alia penalties for failure to furnish returns of turnover within the time allowed and for failure to pay tax due within the prescribed time. Under sub-cl. (2) of S. 14, a dealer liable to tax, who collects more sales tax as such than he is liable to pay the Government, is liable for conviction by a Magistrate and the punishment may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both. The dealer and not the purchaser is thus liable to pay the tax. The dealer may himself bear the burden of tax or may pass it on to the purchaser by including the amount of sales tax in the sale-price or by collecting it separately as such in addition to the sale-price. This is clear from R. 51 reproduced above. The dealer and not the purchaser is thus liable to pay the tax. The dealer may himself bear the burden of tax or may pass it on to the purchaser by including the amount of sales tax in the sale-price or by collecting it separately as such in addition to the sale-price. This is clear from R. 51 reproduced above. It must be noted that the fact that the tax is payable by the dealer and no one else and that if he fails to pay the tax, it is recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue and further that he is liable to penalty if he fails to pay the amount within the time allowed, does not constitute the dealer an agent of the Government for the collection of the tax. The Act and the rules do not say anything as to whether a dealer has to pay to the Government all the amounts realised by him as tax, if they are in excess of the tax actually assessed. No penalty has been imposed by the Act for the failure of the dealer to recover the amount of tax from the purchaser. The amount that is recoverable from the dealer as arrears of land revenue under S. 9 (3) is not the amount which the dealer has actually recovered from the purchaser and failed to pay to the Government or the amount that he should have recovered but is the amount of tax assessed on him under S. 8. The Act and the rules do not lay down that the dealer shall collect the amount of sales tax from the purchaser only by way of "tax". What R. 51 does, is only to enable the dealer to shift the burden of tax, if he so likes by including the amount of tax in the price or by collecting it separately as sales tax in addition to the sale-price. 3. From what has been stated above it is obvious that if the amount of sales tax is recovered by the dealer by including it in the sale-price, it constituted a part of the turnover and of the taxable turnover and is liable to be taxed again. By including the amount of sales tax in the sale-price, the dealer does not levy a tax on the purchaser or collect the amount as tax from the purchaser. By including the amount of sales tax in the sale-price, the dealer does not levy a tax on the purchaser or collect the amount as tax from the purchaser. What he does is to ensure that he will not be a loser by having to pay sales tax levied upon him by the Government, by making it a part of his bargain with the consumer that the price of the goods agreed to be sold would be raised by the amount equal to the tax which he would be liable to pay to the Government. It is only if the dealer recovers the amount of sales tax separately in addition to the sale-price and in the manner laid down in R. 51, that the dealer becomes entitled to say that the amount of tax does not form a part of the purchase-price and as such does not constitute a part of the turnover and the taxable turnover. Under R. 51 the dealer can collect the tax separately only if he issues, firstly, a cash or credit memo, secondly keeps a carbon copy thereof and thirdly maintains a separate account in respect of the tax collected from day to day mentioning the number of cash or credit memos. These are the conditions subject to which the dealer can realise the amount of sales tax separately in addition to the sale-price. The conditions are material for in the absence of carbon copies of the cash or credit memos issued and in the absence of a separate account of the tax collected from day to day mentioning the number of cash or credit memos, it is not possible to verify whether as a fact the dealer recovered the amount of sales tax separately in addition to the sale-price and if so how much, or by including it in the sale-price. If, therefore, the dealer fails to keep carbon copies of the memos and fails to maintain accounts as required by R. 51, then there is no evidence of the type required by R. 51 to show that the amount of sales tax was recovered separately and in the absence of such prescribed evidence, the amount of sales tax recovered cannot but be regarded as having been included in the sale-price. 4. In the instant case no carbon copies of the cash or credit memos issued were maintained by the assessee firm. 4. In the instant case no carbon copies of the cash or credit memos issued were maintained by the assessee firm. Thus, one of the conditions under which the applicant was permitted by R. 51 to recover the amount of sales tax separately as such in addition to the sale-price was not fulfilled. The Sales Tax Department was, therefore, right in treating the amount of sales tax recovered by the applicant as a part of the sale-price and in refusing to deduct the amount representing the sales tax from the amount of turnover. The argument of Mr. Patankar learned counsel for the assessee firm, was that by an order issued by the Director and Divisional Controller, Civil Supplies, Guna, the wholesale price of sugar was fixed at Rs. 36/15/- and this included an amount of Rs. 2/2/9 on account of sales tax, that the applicant was enjoined to sell the sugar at this price and no other, and that, therefore, the amount representing the sales tax should have been deducted from the aggregate amount for which the sugar was sold for the purpose of determining the taxable turnover. It is true that the Civil Supplies Department did issue an order fixing the wholesale price of sugar at Rs. 36/15/- including the sales tax amount and requiring the dealers to sell sugar at this controlled price. But in my opinion this order of the Civil Supplies Department can be of no avail to the applicant, and is of no value in the determination of question arising in this reference. The order of the Director and Divisional Controller of Civil Supplies is not an order made by any competent authority in the exercise of the powers vested in him under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act or the rules made thereunder. Nothing contained therein can, therefore, in any way control the provisions of the Sales Tax Act or the rules made thereunder. What is material for the purpose of the assessment of the sales tax under the Act is the amount for which the goods were actually sold. Nothing contained therein can, therefore, in any way control the provisions of the Sales Tax Act or the rules made thereunder. What is material for the purpose of the assessment of the sales tax under the Act is the amount for which the goods were actually sold. The fixation of a controlled price by the Department of Civil Supplies is one thing, the price at which the sugar was actually sold is another matter and the question whether the price at which the goods were actually sold did or did not in fact include the amount of sales tax is entirely different. A dealer who sells sugar at a price different from that fixed by an order of the Civil Supplies Department, may render himself liable to penalty for contravening that order. But so far as the assessment of sales tax on those transactions of sales is concerned, he will be assessed on the basis of the price for which he actually sold the goods and not on the basis of the controlled price of the goods. The order of the Civil Supplies Department relied upon by the applicant only enabled the dealer to charge the purchaser the amount of sales tax, so that he, i.e., the dealer may not be a loser by having to pay himself the sales tax. It no doubt increased the total price of the sugar by the amount payable on account of the sales tax. But it did not prohibit the dealer from collecting Rs. 2/2/9 separately as sales tax in addition to the sale price fixed by the Department excluding the amount of sales tax. The question whether the amount of sales tax was recovered by including it in the sale-price or separately as such in addition to the sale-price is one solely governed by R. 51 and not by the order of the Director and Divisional Controller, Civil Supplies. Mr. Patankar relying on explanation (i) to S. 2(q) of the Act then argued that the amount for which the goods are sold cannot include the amount of sales tax. I fail to see how this explanation is of any assistance to the assessee firm. The explanation says that the amount for which the goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold. I fail to see how this explanation is of any assistance to the assessee firm. The explanation says that the amount for which the goods are sold shall include any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold. It is true that sales tax is not a sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold. But from this it does not follow that the amount of sales tax cannot form a part of the amount for which goods are sold. It is a well-known rule of interpretation that the word "include" is a word of enlargement, the word is generally used in definitions and interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words and phrases occurring in the body of the statutes, and when it is so used the words or phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to the natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. Now in cases in which a dealer adds to the sale price, an amount equal to the tax, it would undoubtedly be a part of the "amount for which the goods are sold". The explanation has to be read "subject to such conditions and restrictions" as may be prescribed in or by the Act and the rules made thereunder. If, therefore, R. 51 permits a dealer to include the amount of sales tax in the sale price it cannot be argued that the expression "the amount for which the goods are sold" as used in the explanation must exclude the amount of sales tax. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant-firm referred us to the decisions in Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Sons, AIR 1954 Mad 856 (A) and Velayudhan v. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1953 Trav-C 618 (B) supporting his contention that the amount collected by a dealer on account of sales tax cannot be treated as a part of the purchase and as such does not constitute a part of the turnover and is not liable to be taxed again. These cases are distinguishable by the fact that the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and of the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act are entirely different from the provisions of the local Act. Under the Madras Act the amount that a registered dealer is empowered to collect is described as "amount by way of tax" and what he has to pay to the Government is also described as "the amount by way of tax collected under the Act". The Act allows a dealer to collect the amount of Sales Tax only as a tax. There is thus no room to think that under the Madras Act the payment of the tax by the consumer is a part of the purchase price. In the Travancore-Cochin Act there is a specific rule directing the exclusion to the tax collected from the turnover. The cases which have some bearing here are Kaniram Janki v State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 10 (C); Jethalal Virajlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 Nag 194 (D) and Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, West Bengal, 53 Cal WN 278 (E). The material provisions of the Bihar, West Bengal and the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act are somewhat analogous to the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. In all these decisions a distinction has been drawn between the cases where the dealer is authorised by law to collect the amount of sales tax, as tax from the consumer and cases where he is not so authorised. In the former case the sale price would clearly be the amount paid less the sales tax if the collection is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. In the latter case if the dealer adds the amount of tax to the sale price and recovers it from the purchaser then it constitutes a part of the sale price. In the instant case the dealer is permitted to collect sales tax from the buyer either by including it in the sale price or by collecting it separately a tax in addition to the sale price. But he can collect it separately in addition to the sale price only subject to the conditions laid down in R. 51. 6. For all these reasons my answers to the questions referred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax are : 1. But he can collect it separately in addition to the sale price only subject to the conditions laid down in R. 51. 6. For all these reasons my answers to the questions referred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax are : 1. the dealer cannot deduct from the aggregate amount for which the goods are sold, the amount representing the sales tax, unless he has collected it separately as such in addition to the sale price after fulfilling the three conditions laid down in R. 51; 2. the term "taxable turnover" as defined in S. 2(p) of the Act would include the amount of sales tax if the amount is collected by including it in the sale price. But the amount of sales tax collected separately as such in addition to the sale price in conformity with R. 51 is not included in the term; 3. the amount of sales tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sale price is liable to be taxed again. 7. In the circumstances of the case I would leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. A. H. KHAN, J. :- 8. The Commissioner Sales Tax, Madhya Bharat has formulated three questions and referred them to the High Court for opinion under S. 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (Act No. 30 of 1950). The questions referred to are : 1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the dealer can get the benefit of R. 51 without fulfilling the obligations conferred by it; 2. whether the term taxable turnover as defined in S. 2(p) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act includes the amount of Sales Tax realised by the dealer, and 3. whether the amount of sales tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sale price is liable to sales tax. 9. In attempting to give my opinion about the question No. 1, I think that if the answer is given in the abstract, without reference to the facts of this case, it would be that generally speaking an ordinary dealer, who desires to get the benefit of R. 51, made under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act should conform to the procedure laid down in it. But the Commissioner has not sought a mere interpretation of R. 51 (which is so apparent on the face of it) but he seeks our opinion as to the effect of R. 51 in regard to the particular circumstances of the case that have been given by him. 10. The facts of the case are somewhat extraordinary. The assessee-firm did not merely deal in sugar but in the words of the Commissioner Sales Tax, "it was appointed agent by the Civil Supplies Department" of the Madhya Bharat Government for the purpose of importing and selling sugar. The Civil Supplies Department exercised rigid control over its agent, the assessee-firm, in the following manner : One, it gave the firm a permit to buy a specified quantity of sugar outside Madhya Bharat. Two, on receipt of sugar the Government Department calculated the expenses incurred in obtaining it. Three, the assessee-firm was told that their margin of profit would be a certain sum fixed by the Government Department. Four, the Department earmarked the sales tax due on the sale of sugar per maund, which was calculated on the basis of the Sales Tax Act and which the assessee firm was required to realise. Five, the Civil supplies department required the assessee-firm to realise a given amount as Shashan Kar (surcharge) for the Government. Six, after adding up all the above items, the Government directed the firm to charge the customers at that rate, which the firm accordingly did. The price thus included the sales tax which was separately and clearly marked in the direction given by the Department. The control did not end here, the firm (agent) could not sell sugar to anyone it liked, it could only sell it to those, who were sent by the Government to the firm for the purchase of sugar. 11. Below I reproduce a copy of the instructions of the Civil Supplies Department (enclosed by the Commissioner) which would give a complete picture of the manner in which the price was fixed for the agent by the Civil Supplies Department, and I would like to emphasise that this price included sales tax, which was specifically earmarked. (After reproducing the Instructions of the Civil Supplies Department, the judgment proceeded :) 12. (After reproducing the Instructions of the Civil Supplies Department, the judgment proceeded :) 12. From the above it would appear that the assessee-firm was not an independent dealer (one who fixed his own price) nor a dealer in the ordinary sense but was an agent carrying out the business under the directions and strict control of a Government Department. The firm may be truly described as a controlled dealer and agent. 13. Bearing these facts in mind, the short question is, what if the firm did not maintain carbon copies of sales as required by S. 51 of the Rules. The Section (51) runs thus :- "A dealer liable to pay tax may collect from the buyer by including it in the sale price but if he collects it separately as such, in addition to the sale price, he shall issue a cash or credit memo, as the case may be and keep a carbon copy thereof and also maintain a separate amount in respect of the tax collected from day to day mentioning the number of the cash or credit-memos, as the case may be." 14. Although the marginal note of this rule says "dealer may collect tax from customer" but apart from authorising a dealer to collect sale tax from the purchaser it also goes on to direct him as to how the sale tax may be shown to have been collected by the dealer. It has indicated two ways. First, it has given liberty to the dealer to include the sale tax in the price (in that event the memo of sale would not show what amount was charged as price and how much was charged as sale tax) and in the circumstances, the whole amount will be taxable turn-over. The second method is to the effect that if the dealer sold a thing at a particular price and collected tax on it separately, then he should issue a memo, of which he shall keep a carbon copy, and, also maintain separate account of the tax so collected. If he observes this procedure, then the sales tax will not be levied on the sale price but the collector will only claim the tax separately collected. 15. It is common ground that the assessee-firm did not keep the account as required in the latter part of R. 51. If he observes this procedure, then the sales tax will not be levied on the sale price but the collector will only claim the tax separately collected. 15. It is common ground that the assessee-firm did not keep the account as required in the latter part of R. 51. It infringed the rule in so far as it did not keep a carbon copy. But the contention of the assessee firm is that because the Civil Supplies Department in authorising the sale had already earmarked the sale tax, so it did not observe the formalities of R. 51. 16. What the Sales Tax Officer has actually done in the present case is that because the assessee-firm did not keep carbon copies of the memos of sale, he has taxed the entire turnover which includes (1) the sum earmarked by the Civil Supplies as a sales tax and also (2) the surcharge that the firm collected for the Civil Supplies Department. In doing so, I am afraid the Sales Tax Officer has levied tax upon tax. The plea of the assessee-firm is that the instructions given by the Department included sales tax, therefore, it is only liable to pay sales tax which it has collected and that no sales tax can be levied on the surcharge and the sales tax which had been separately collected. In answer to this contention the reply of the sales tax Officer amounts to this "what you say is true, but since you did not keep a carbon copy according to R. 51 we would tax the entire amount". In other words, although the Sales Tax Officer realises the truth of what the assessee says, yet, he takes his stand rigidly on R. 51 (on the letter rather than the spirit) and he feels himself justified in levying tax upon tax. To me this insistence of the taxing officer in the circumstances of the case appears amiss. 17. In other words, although the Sales Tax Officer realises the truth of what the assessee says, yet, he takes his stand rigidly on R. 51 (on the letter rather than the spirit) and he feels himself justified in levying tax upon tax. To me this insistence of the taxing officer in the circumstances of the case appears amiss. 17. The real object of the latter part of R. 51 with which we are concerned here, is to afford facility to the Tax Collector to ascertain the actual amount of Sales Tax realised by the dealer, and, with that end in view, the dealer is required to keep a carbon copy, because it would tell the Tax Collector what sum the dealer has charged as the price of the articles sold and what amount he has collected as sales tax. There can be no other reason behind the rule. But where the Tax Collector in another manner (indicated by Civil Supplies Department) is equally satisfied with the separate collection of tax and where the objection of the rule is not defeated, then in the peculiar circumstances of the case to penalise the firm to the extent intended by the officer does not appear to be fair. 18. I would suggest that Rule 51 is really intended for ordinary dealers who are at liberty to fix their own price and do the business in their own way. But there the dealer is not free to do so, but is a controlled dealer or agent of the Government, which has itself earmarked the sales tax and required the dealer to realise surcharge for it, such cases are on a different footing and they do not entirely attract the provisions of R. 51, which I hold are intended for free traders and not for the controlled dealers. Since the instructions of the Civil Supplies Department clearly earmark the amount of sales tax, I think the object of R. 51 is fulfilled. The object of R. 51, I shall repeat again is that the Sales Tax Officer should be able to ascertain the price at which an article was sold and also the sales tax realised by the dealer. When this object is fulfilled by the memo of directions given by the Civil Supplies Department, the Sales Tax Officer can have no real grievance and his objection is at the most a technical one. When this object is fulfilled by the memo of directions given by the Civil Supplies Department, the Sales Tax Officer can have no real grievance and his objection is at the most a technical one. In such circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer should accept the tax that has been separately collected. 19. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Sales Tax Department has contended that as there is no provision in the Sales Tax Act for a person to be appointed an Agent, the assessee-firm cannot be said to be an agent of the Civil Supplies Department. But I fail to see the force of this contention. A person is an agent of another according to the Contract Acts and if according to the facts of the case, the controlled dealer was as a matter of course an agent of the Civil Supplies Department, I should like to know how else he can be described. There is no question of his being an agent under the Sales Tax Act and the Assessee-firm does not claim any exemption from the payment of the Tax as an agent. I have held him to be an agent, because his position is like that and even the Sales Tax Commissioner has described him in his reference as such. I do not say that as an agent he is entitled to exemption from tax and as such the point that he is not an agent under the Sales Tax Act is of no consequence. 20. I would like to examine the point from another angle. Supposing R. 51 does apply and the assessee-firm did not keep a carbon copy as directed by R. 51, then the assessee-firm, at the outside, may be deemed to have contravened its provisions. According to S. 24(4) of the Sales Tax Act all rules made under the Act (and R. 51 and made under S. 24 of the Act) shall have the effect as if enacted in the Act. Thus R. 51 becomes a part and parcel of the Act itself. In Maxwell (The Interpretation of Statutes) 1946 page 54, it is indicated that if it is said about Rules made under an Act that they shall have the same effect as if contained in the Act, then the Rules must be treated for all purposes of construction exactly as if they were in the Act. In Maxwell (The Interpretation of Statutes) 1946 page 54, it is indicated that if it is said about Rules made under an Act that they shall have the same effect as if contained in the Act, then the Rules must be treated for all purposes of construction exactly as if they were in the Act. Now S. 14 (g) of the Act provides penalties. It says that if any person willfully acts in contravention of any provision of the Act not otherwise provided for, the assessing authority shall direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding Rs. 100/-. If the Sales Tax Officer thinks that there has been a breach of the provision in that the assessee-firm did not keep carbon copies, let the firm be mulcted in penalty for what appears to me, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to be a mere technical offence. 21. After considering the question on its merits, I now propose to discuss briefly the rulings that have been cited at the bar. 22. Mr. Patankar, the learned counsel for the applicant (Assessee-firm) has referred us to AIR 1954 Mad 856 (A) and AIR 1953 Trav-C 618 (B). In these cases it is held that "Sales Tax collected by a dealer is immune from the levy of any further sales tax as the collection is made for and on behalf of the State and his obligation is to make it over to the State on whose behalf he makes the collection. No part of the money collected by way of sales-tax belongs to him". In the first place it must be borne in mind that the Madras Sales Tax Act, and the Tranvancore-Cochin Act are different from the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. But what the learned Judges have observed is a general proposition of law based on justice, equity and good conscience. I venture to suggest that the latter part of R. 51 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Rules is itself based on the principle enunciated above, namely where the Sales Tax is separately collected by the dealer that alone shall be taken by him. I venture to suggest that the latter part of R. 51 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Rules is itself based on the principle enunciated above, namely where the Sales Tax is separately collected by the dealer that alone shall be taken by him. It is observed that the sales tax cannot be said to be a sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold and in this view of the matter the sales tax separately charged cannot be included in price and the dealer would not be liable to further sales tax upon the collection earmarked by him as sales tax. I am of the opinion, that the above two cases, do furnish a guide, which help us in arriving at the conclusion. 23. The only objection preferred by the learned Government Advocate above is that the law being different the rulings have no bearing. It is conceded that the provisions may be different, yet the fact cannot be denied that in so far as they enunciate a principle, which under lies all the taxing legislation, they are helpful in determining the point. 24. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sales Tax Department has referred me to AIR 1953 Pat 10 (C), AIR 1953 Nag 194 (D) and Phoolchand Sanat v. Sales Tax Officer, Fatehgarh, U.P., 1952-3 STC 229 (F). Now on looking to the cases referred to above. I find that the controversy in these cases covered round the word sales-price as defined in the respective enactments of sales tax in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. There the expression sale price included all amounts collected from the purchaser, including the sales tax. In the first place no definition is given of the sale-price in the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act and secondly, the pattern of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act is different from the law prevailing in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, in so far as R. 51, itself allows the sales tax to be separately charged and when so done it will not be included in the sale price. In this view of the matter, the cases cited by the learned Government Advocate do not throw much light on the point under consideration. If anything I find some support for the view I have taken. 25. In this view of the matter, the cases cited by the learned Government Advocate do not throw much light on the point under consideration. If anything I find some support for the view I have taken. 25. In AIR 1953 Pat 10 (C) on p. 13 first column, I find a passage quoted from 53 Cal WN 278 (E) in which Harries, C.J., of the Calcutta High Court has observed :- "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." 25a. Now according to R. 51, a dealer is authorised to collect sales tax and in view of the above observations, the price of the sugar would be the amount realised less the sales tax. 26. As for 1952-3 STC 229 (G), I would say that it is wide off the mark. Here the applicant claimed exemption from the levy of tax and applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Certiorari and prohibition, restraining the Sales Tax Officer from realising the tax. It was held that the Sales Tax Act provides a complete machinery and therefore an application under Art. 226 could not be maintained. Here the case itself has been referred to us by the Commissioner Sales Tax and no question of the issue of any writ arises. 27. For reasons stated above my reply to question No. 1 is that in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Officer should accept the sales tax collected by the assessee-firm under the direction of the Civil Supplies Department or at the outside if he is so inclined, he may impose a penalty up to Rs. 100/- on the assessee-firm under S. 14(g) of the Act and accept the amount of sales tax collected by him. 28. With regard to questions Nos. 2 and 3 I agree with the answers of my learned brother, Dixit, J. DIXIT AND A. H. KHAN, JJ. :- 29. As we differ on the answer to question No. 1 which is the very material question here, let the case be put up before the Honble the Chief Justice for the nomination of a third Judge to hear and determine this reference in so far as it relates to question No. 1 referred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax. :- 29. As we differ on the answer to question No. 1 which is the very material question here, let the case be put up before the Honble the Chief Justice for the nomination of a third Judge to hear and determine this reference in so far as it relates to question No. 1 referred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax. (The case was referred to Shinde, J., who delivered the following) 30. ORDER:- This case has been referred to me as there is a difference of opinion in respect of question No. 1 between Dixit and Khan, JJ., who heard the reference. 31. This reference was made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under S. 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act No. 30 of 1950. The circumstances out of which this reference arises are briefly as follows :- 32. Messrs Dhannalal Chunnilal were authorised by the Civil Supplies Department to import and sell sugar in Guna region for the year 1951-52. The total taxable turnover in respect of these transactions was Rs. 5,23,057-12-0. On this taxable turnover the firm was assessed to a sales-tax amounting to Rs. 32691-2-0. The applicant firm contended before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Commissioner that the amount of Rs. 5,23,057-12-0 included an amount of Rs. 30,768-14-6 which had been realised from the purchasers by way of sales-tax and consequently the said amount should be deducted in determining the taxable turnover. This contention was rejected by all the three authorities and the firm was called upon to pay Rs. 32,691/2/- as sales tax on the taxable turnover of Rs. 5,23,057/12/-. At the instance of the assessee-firm therefore the commissioner referred the following law points to the High Court for decision :- 1. That whether, in the circumstances of the case, the dealer can get the benefit of R. 51 without fulfilling the obligations conferred by it. 2. Whether the term "taxable turnover" as defined in S. 2(p) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act includes the amount of sales-tax realised by the dealer. 3. Whether the amount of sales-tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sales-price, is liable to sales-tax. 33. Dixit, J., answered these questions as follows :- 1. 2. Whether the term "taxable turnover" as defined in S. 2(p) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act includes the amount of sales-tax realised by the dealer. 3. Whether the amount of sales-tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sales-price, is liable to sales-tax. 33. Dixit, J., answered these questions as follows :- 1. The dealer cannot deduct from the aggregate amount for which the goods are sold, the amount representing the sales-tax, unless he has collected it separately as such in addition to the sale-price after fulfilling the three conditions laid down in R. 61. 2. The term "Taxable Turn-Over" as defined in S. 2 (p) of the Act would include the amount of sales-tax if the amount is collected by including it in the sale-price. But the amount of sales-tax collected separately as such in addition to the sale-price in conformity with R. 51 is not included in the term. 3. The amount of sales-tax collected by a dealer by including it in the sale-price is liable to be taxed again. 34. Khan, J., agreed with the answers proprosed by Dixit, J., in respect of questions Nos. 2 and 3; but in respect of question No. 1, he did not agree with the view taken by Dixit, J., Consequently this matter has been referred to me. 35. Khan, J., does not disagree with Dixit, J., in respect of question No. 1 in so far as a general proposition is concerned. He, however, holds that in so far as the assessee-firm was the agent of the Government and the sale-price was fixed by computing the sales-tax, there is no difficulty in calculating the amount of sales-tax, and hence in this particular case even if the conditions laid down in R. 51 are not fulfilled, the amount of sales-tax realised by the assessee-firm should not be included in the taxable turnover. It may be stated at once that whatever may have been the position of the assessee-firm vis-a-vis the Government, in respect of surcharge and difference in price, it certainly was not the agent of the Government to realise the sales tax. The order issued by the Assistant Director and Regional Controller, Civil Supplies, Guna, dated 29-11-51 does not state that the assessee-firm was to realise the sales-tax. The order issued by the Assistant Director and Regional Controller, Civil Supplies, Guna, dated 29-11-51 does not state that the assessee-firm was to realise the sales-tax. The order specifically states that the surcharge and the difference in price was to be deposited by the firm into the office. But the order gives no direction regarding the sales-tax. The sales-tax and its realisation is governed by the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act. It is not, therefore, correct to say that the assessee-firm was appointed an agent to realise the sales-tax. 36. The primary liability to pay the sales-tax is that of the dealer as laid down by S. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act. Section 7 of the Act imposes a duty on every dealer to furnish returns of his turnover. Section 8 lays down the procedure of assessment. Under S. 3, tax has to be paid on the taxable turnover. Section 2(p) defines taxable turnover as follows :- "Taxable turnover" means that part of dealers turnover which remains after deducting therefrom, sale of goods, declared tax-free, or for which no rate of tax has been notified or which have already been subject to sales-tax under this Act." The expression "Turnover" has been defined by S. 2(q). It states :- "Turnover" means the aggregate amount for which goods are either sold or supplied for the payment received in respect of a contract by a dealer." The definition of "Turnover" makes it amply clear that it is the aggregate amount for which goods are sold that constitutes "Turnover". The taxable turnover consists of a turnover excepting the amounts realised for goods declared tax-free or for which no rate of tax has been notified, or which have been already subject to sales-tax. This being so, all the amounts realised from the sale of goods, excepting the cases mentioned above, are to form the taxable turnover. Explanation to S. 2(q) permits deduction only in one case; and that is where any discount is allowed or where any amount is refunded on account of return of articles. This view is further supported by R. 27 of the rules framed under the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act. This, therefore, leaves no doubt whatsoever that if sale-price includes the sales-tax, the whole of the amount is to form the taxable turnover. This view is further supported by R. 27 of the rules framed under the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act. This, therefore, leaves no doubt whatsoever that if sale-price includes the sales-tax, the whole of the amount is to form the taxable turnover. Rule 51 reads as follows : "A dealer liable to pay tax may collect sales-tax from the buyer by including it in the sale-price but if he collects it separately as such in addition to the sale-price, he shall issue a cash or credit memo, as the case may be and keep a carbon copy thereof and also maintain a separate account in respect of the tax collected from day to day mentioning the number of cash or credit memos, as the case may be." This rule permits a dealer to realise the sales-tax in two ways. He may include it in the sale-price or he may collect it separately as such and follow the procedure laid down in the Rule. If therefore, he includes it in the sale-price, that becomes a part of the sale-price and the entire amount would go to form the taxable turnover. But if he chooses to collect the tax separately in addition to the sale price, he must issue a cash or credit memo, keep a carbon copy thereof and also maintain a separate account. The act envisages no third procedure. If. therefore, the dealer fails to follow the procedure laid down for separate collection, the amount of sales-tax must be included in the sale-price. If the amount of sale-tax is included in the sale-price, the entire amount becomes taxable turnover. This is admitted even by Khan, J. Consequently it is not necessary to deal with this point any further. 37. What we have to consider is whether the position of the assessee-firm is any different as the Civil Supplies had, in arriving at the price to be charged from the customers, included the sales-tax. As already stated, although the sales-tax was included in the price fixed by the Civil Supplies no direction was given regarding the realisation of the tax. In determining the price, the Assistant Director, Civil Supplies, had to take into consideration all the expenses which the firm was likely to incur so that the firm may not be put to a loss. In determining the price, the Assistant Director, Civil Supplies, had to take into consideration all the expenses which the firm was likely to incur so that the firm may not be put to a loss. But the method of realisation of sales-tax was left to the firm as contemplated by the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act. The Assistant Director of Civil Supplies could not dictate to the dealer as to how he was to collect the sales-tax. Rule 51 of the Rules framed under the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act gives discretion to a dealer regarding the realisation of the tax. If the assessee-firm wanted to collect the tax separately, it should not only have collected the sales-tax separately in addition to the sale-price but also should have issued cash or credit memos, kept carbon copies and maintained a separate account in respect of tax. But the assessee-firm did not do so. From the order of the Assessment Officer it appears that the assessee-firm included the sales-tax in the sale-price. Consequently the entire amount formed the taxable turnover. It may also be mentioned that the assessee-firm did not collect the tax separately in addition to the sale-price nor did it keep any carbon copies of cash or credit memos nor did it keep a separate account in respect of the tax collected. In these circumstances, even in this particular case, the assessee-firm is not entitled to deduct the amount of the sales-tax collected, from the amount of taxable turnover. 38. The cases referred to by the parties are practically of no assistance. Two sets of decisions have been referred to. One set of decisions consists of AIR 1953 Pat 10 (C), AIR 1953 Nag 194 (D), 53 Cal WN 278 (E). The second set of decisions consists of AIR 1954 Mad 856 (A) and AIR 1953 Trav-Co 618 (B) and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1956 Pat 92 (B). The first set of decisions is based on the provision of the Act which does not allow a dealer to collect the tax separately; while the second set of decisions is based on the provision which allows a dealer to collect the tax separately. Consequently, these decisions are of no avail in the instant case. It is not disputed that if the tax is included in the sale-price, it becomes part of the taxable turnover. Consequently, these decisions are of no avail in the instant case. It is not disputed that if the tax is included in the sale-price, it becomes part of the taxable turnover. In the case of Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act, a dealer has been given a choice either to include the sales-tax in the sale-price or to collect the tax separately as such and follow a certain procedure. This being a statutory provision, a dealer must conform either to the one procedure or the other. If he fails to follow the procedure laid down for the collection of the tax separately, he cannot claim the benefit of separate collection. In this particular case, not only the assessee-firm did not follow the procedure laid down for separate collection, but also included the sales-tax in the sale-price. Clearly, therefore, the amount of sales tax realised cannot be deducted from the taxable turnover. 39. Khan, J., has also stated in his judgment that at the most the assessee-firm be penalised under S. 14(1)(g) for not following the procedure laid down by R. 51. Section 14(1)(g) is as follows : "If any person wilfully acts in contravention of any provision of this act not otherwise provided for the assessing authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in the case of (f) and (g) a sum not exceeding Rs. 100/-." This provision does not appear to have any bearing on the instant case. The question of wilful contravention does not arise at all. Rule 51 allows a dealer to collect the sales-tax from the buyers either by including it in the sale price or separately as such in addition to the sale-price and follow a certain procedure. Thus a dealer has been given a discretion to collect the sales tax one way or the other. If he, therefore, chooses to collect it by including it in the sale-price, it cannot be said that there is a wilful contravention of any provision. The rule itself allows a dealer to realise the tax by including it in the sale-price. In these circumstances, in my opinion S. 14(1)(g) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act has no bearing on the present case. 40. For the reasons given above, I agree with the view expressed by Dixit, J., Consequently, the answer proposed by Dixit, J., to question No. 1 be sent to the Commissioner, Sales-Tax.