Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. This is a reference by the Member Board of Revenue. Bihar under Sec.25 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") of the following three questions of law which according to the Member arose out of the order passed by the Additional Member. Board of Revenue on the 19th April 1962:- - (1) Whether the liability of the dealer to pay tax, under the charging Section 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. 1947, commences from the date on which such liability accrued or is determined by the date of the grant of the registration certificate? (2) Whether the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act are controlled by the provisions of Sec.14-A of the Act. so as to shift the date of liability under Sec. 4 of the Act, to the date of the grant of the Registration Certificate? (3) Whether the payment of tax by a dealer under the Act is dependent on his having realised the tax? 2. The material facts are as follows the assessee (opposite party) commenced its business as a dealer on the 3rd November 1956, and filed an application for registration on the 16th November, 1956. The authorities concerned, after making the usual enquiries and verifications, etc., issued the certificate of registration on the 14th May, 1967. The certificate was in Form II prescribed under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, and though the date of registration was mentioned in the first paragraph of the certificate, it was further stated in the second paragraph that the dealer was liable to pay tax on sales made from the 8rd November, 1956, the date of commencement of the business. The petitioner applied for exemption from payment of the tax for the period from the 3rd November. 1956 to the 14th May, 1957 on the ground that the department had delayed in issuing the registration certificate The Sales Tax Officer by his order dated the 18th May. 1957. rejected this prayer observing that "the delay has occurred due to the non-co-operative attitude of the firm as will be evident from the records". 1956 to the 14th May, 1957 on the ground that the department had delayed in issuing the registration certificate The Sales Tax Officer by his order dated the 18th May. 1957. rejected this prayer observing that "the delay has occurred due to the non-co-operative attitude of the firm as will be evident from the records". The petitioner then filed a revision before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer, observing as follows:- - "The delay however does not appear to be due mainly on account of fault on the part of the department but also on the part of the petitioner. . . In the present case I am satisfied that the delay was also on account of fault of the dealer not furnishing all informations with the application. I, therefore consider that the petitioner is not entitled to any adjustment of tax for the delay caused in the grant of registration certificate." When a further revision was taken before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax he, by his order, dated the 26th March 1960, quashed the orders of the two lower sales tax authorities, observing that the petitioners prayer was under Section 15-A of the Act and neither the Sales Tax Officer nor the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to dispose of the matter Ultimately the Commisioner of Commercial Taxes, by his order dated the 12th July 1961, passed an order in favour of the assessee under Sec.15-A of the Act, observing that the delay in the issue of the registration certificate for the period from the 3rd November. 1956 to 14th May. 1957, was not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the assessee. He therefore, directed that the sum of Rs. 29.95, representing the sales tax paid by the assessee to its sellers for the goods intended for re-sale should be adjusted towards sales lax due for subsequent periods. The Commissioners order is not however, clear as to what the department intended to do as regards the liability of the assessee for sales tax on transactions of sale made between the 3rd November. 1956. and 14th May 1957 This question was agitated before the Additional Member. Board of Revenue, in a further revision petition (Case No. 14 of 1962). Before him it was contended that by virtue of Sec.15-A of the Act. 1956. and 14th May 1957 This question was agitated before the Additional Member. Board of Revenue, in a further revision petition (Case No. 14 of 1962). Before him it was contended that by virtue of Sec.15-A of the Act. the exemption from payment of sales tax for the said period could be granted. He however rejected this argument, observing that Sec.15-A applies to purchases made by the dealer from his sellers and it has nothing to do with payment of sales tax for sales made by him to other customers. But he accepted the contention of the assessee that the Sales Tax Officer had retrospectively fixed the date of registration from the 3rd November. 1956, though in fact the certificate was issued only on the 14th May 1957. He thought that in view of the penal provisions of Sec.14-A of the Act. the liability to sales tax should not have been fixed retrospectively and gave the following direction:- - "In view of the reasons given above I would direct that the date of issue of registration certificate should be the date on which the liability for payment of sales tax should take effect " But be also observed that if the dealer had contravened the provisions of Sec.14-A of the Act action under that section could be taken. 3 The order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is not very clear as to whether as a proposition of law he held that it would be illegal to fix a date of liability to sales tax from a date prior to the date of actual registration, or else whether on a question of propriety he held that in view of the finding of the Commissioner in revision that there was no delay on the part of the dealer in applying for registration and his granting him relief under Section 15-A. it was not proper to fix the liability for sales tax on the assessee from any date prior to the actual date of registration 4. The Member, Board of Revenue, however thought that the three questions formulated above arise out of the order of the Additional Member, and hence referred the question to this Court. 5. It is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Act. The Member, Board of Revenue, however thought that the three questions formulated above arise out of the order of the Additional Member, and hence referred the question to this Court. 5. It is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Act. Both the expressions "dealer" and "registered dealer" have been defined in clauses (c) and (f) in Sec.2 of the Act, a dealer being a person who sells or supplies goods, whereas a registered dealer is a dealer who is registered under the Act. The charging section is Sec. 4, which says that every dealer whose gross turnover during a specified period exceeds a certain sum "shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales which have taken place in Bihar on and from the said date". It is true that the charging section does not say that the registered dealer alone shall be liable to pay the sales tax. Section 9 of the Act deals with the registration of dealers Sub-section (1) of that section forbids a dealer while being liable under Sec. 4 of the Act to pay tax to carry on business as a dealer unless he is registered under the Act and possesses a registration certificate. Sub-section (2) requires him to make an application for registration in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority and Sub-section (3) says that the prescribed authority after being satisfied after enquiry in accordance with the rules shall grant him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form, the form being Form II referred to above Rule 5 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, requires some sort of enquiry to be made by the authority before granting the certificate of registration Thus there is bound to be an appreciable interval between the date on which an application is made by a dealer for registration under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 and the date on which the certificate is actually granted to him under Sub-section (3) of that section. But Sub-section (1) strangely enough says that he shall not carry on business as a dealer unless he possesses a registration certificate. This seems to be an impossible condition. But Sub-section (1) strangely enough says that he shall not carry on business as a dealer unless he possesses a registration certificate. This seems to be an impossible condition. A dealer cannot apply for registration certificate in anticipation that his future turnover may exceed the prescribed limit, thereby necessitating his taking a registration certificate Ordinarily one would expect him to apply for the certificate only when he becomes liable under Sec. 4 to pay the tax. But some months must necessarily elapse before the certificate is granted. Sub-section (1), however says that he shall not carry on business as a dealer without possessing a registration certificate The Act could not have possibly contemplated that as soon as the dealer applies for the certificate he should suspend his business until the certificate is actually issued to him Hence from the date on which the certificate is applied for till the date on which the certificate is actually issued a dealer must necessarily be contravening the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 9 through no faull of his own. Neither in the Act, nor in the rules, is there any express provision to the effect that a registration certificate when granted shall take retrospective effect from the date of the application. 6. There are, however, certain provisions in the Act which show clearly that the Legislature was fully aware of the time lag mentioned above and made special provisions for special circumstances Thus Sub-section (5) of Sec.13 says that if the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax and has nevertheless willfully failed to apply for registration, or having applied for registration failed to supply any particulars or information required by the authority he may assess the dealer to the best of his judgment to gales tax and may also lew penalty There is no other provision for assessing a dealer to gales tax for the period between the date on which the liability to pay tax accrued under Sec. 4 and the date on which the certificate was issued. Moreover Sub-section (5) of Sec.13 requires two of the conditions to be fulfilled before either best of judgment assessment or penalty can be levied under that Sub-section. Moreover Sub-section (5) of Sec.13 requires two of the conditions to be fulfilled before either best of judgment assessment or penalty can be levied under that Sub-section. These conditions are (1) wilful failure on the part of the dealer to apply for registration, and (2) failure in furnish particulars or information required by the prescribed authority after submitting his application. Where, however, there is no wilful failure on the part of the dealer to apply for registration nor was there any negligence or omission on his part to furnish the particulars or information called for Sub-section (5) of Sec.13 cannot possibly apply 7. Sec.14-A further absolutely prohibits a dealer who is not registered to realise any amount by way of tax and the proviso to that section imposes severe penalty on a dealer who contravenes this section Sec.15-A, however is a special provision in favour of a dealer who has applied for registration certificate in proper time but whose certificate has been delayed due to no fault or negligence on his part Such a dealer may get the benefit of that section in respect of the sales tax paid by him to his sellers. 8. Mr. Sarwar Ali, for the department, cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court, Shri Parwatiji Mills V/s. State of Bihar. (1957) 8 STC 653 (Pat), where it was held, on an interpretation of Sub-section (6) of Sec.18 of the Act that the imposition of penalty under that Sub-section is subject to the condition precedent that the dealer has wilfully failed to apply for registration for the period in question but that the assessment for an unregistered dealer under that Sub-section was not subject to any such condition. The only condition for making such assessment was that the Commissioner should be satisfied that the unregistered dealer was liable to pay tax in respect of any period. It is true, as pointed out by the learned Judges that the charging sections are Sections 4 and 5, and the liability to pay sales fax arises out of those sections and does not depend on the issue or non-issue of a notice under Sec.13. But from the facts of that case as narrated in the judgment, it is not clear as to whether on the date of the assessment the dealer had become a registered dealer He had applied for registration on the 2nd January. But from the facts of that case as narrated in the judgment, it is not clear as to whether on the date of the assessment the dealer had become a registered dealer He had applied for registration on the 2nd January. 1948, and when a surprise visit was paid by the officers of the department on the 24th September, 1948, it was found that he had been carrying on business for a long time with a gross turnover which exceeded the registrable limit fixed by the statute Hence he was assessed for the period from the 1st July. 1947, to the 30th September 1948 But it appears that he was assessed as an unregistered dealer and hence the learned Judges further held that he was not liable to pay penalty under Subsection (5) of Sec.13. 9. Here, however we are faced with a peculiar situation It is not challenged that from the 3rd November. 1966, the dealer became liable to apply for registration inasmuch as the gross turnover exceeded the limit fixed by Section 4 of the Act. But he submitted his application for registration only on the 16th November. 1956 and the certificate was issued to him on the 14th May, 1957 At the time of making the assessment he had become a registered dealer. The principle of the aforesaid judgment may properly apply as regards assessment from the 3rd November 1956 to the 16th November 1956 But the further question for consideration here is whether for the period from the 16th November 1956 to the 14th May 1957, the dealer is liable to be assessed to sales tax in view of the clear finding of the department that the delay in granting the registration certificate to him was not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the dealer. It is true that if Sec. 4 is construed in isolation, his liability to sales tax for that period is beyond question But when the entire scheme of the Act as envisaged in Sections 13(5). 14-A and 15 A is carefully scrutinised, it appears to me that there is considerable discretion with the appropriate authority not to assess him for the said period it he is satisfied that the dealer was not responsible for the delay. 14-A and 15 A is carefully scrutinised, it appears to me that there is considerable discretion with the appropriate authority not to assess him for the said period it he is satisfied that the dealer was not responsible for the delay. In other words the assessment of a registered dealer to sates tax for the intervening period between the date of applying for registration and the date of the actual grant of the certificate of registration to him depends on the fulfilment or otherwise of the conditions prescribed in Sub-section (5) of Sec.13 of the Act. It will be highly inequitable to assess him for a period prior to the date of registration when the delay is due to no fault of his own especially when Sec.14-A prohibits him from realising any amount as lax unless and until he becomes a registered dealer and moreover he may also he liable to criminal prosecution under Section 26(1) (a) of the Act. Mr Sarwar Ali, however contended that though by virtue of Sec.14-A he could not collect sales tax from his purchasers until he obtained the registration certificate nevertheless there will be no legal objection to his increasing the price to the extent required to pay the sales tax and thus keep adequate funds for payment of sales tax when demanded by the department. It is true that the assessment is on the dealer and it is not dependent on whether he actually collects sales tax from his purchasers or not: but what is prohibited to be done directly by Sec.14-A cannot be permitted to be done indirectly, nor can the principle of construction be stretched so far as to justify the Court in ignoring the provisions of Sec.14-A altogether while discussing the liability of the dealer under Sec. 4 of the Act. The various sections mentioned by me namely 13(5). 14-A and 15-A, seem to form part of it scheme which is primarily meant while punishing a dishonest dealer to give the maximum concession to an honest dealer whose registration certificate is held up by the department through no fault of his own This seems to be the main reason why in Form II of the rules the assessing authority is given wide discretion to fix a date for liability to pay sales tax different from the date of the actual issue of the registration certificate. The officer concerned may fix a date of liability from the date on which the dealer became liable to be registered or he may fix a later date according to the various circumstances mentioned above 10. In the present case the Sales Tax Officer recorded in the registration certificate that the liability to pay tax accrued from the 3rd November 1956, because he was of the view that the dealer was mainly to blame for the delay in granting the certificate due to his non-co-operating attitude. But when this finding was reversed by the Commissioner and the dealer was completely exonerated from blame in this respect it was open to the Member. Board of Revenue to hold that the dealer should be liable to pav tax only from the date of the certificate. 11. I would therefore answer the questions as follows: Question No. (1): The liability of the dealer to pay tax under Sec. 4 of the Act undoubtedly commenced from the date on which that liability accrued, and if the dealer was an unregistered dealer he could be assessed to sales lax from that date; but if he became a registered dealer on the date of assessment then his assessment for the period from the date of his application for registration till the date of the actual granting of certificate will be subject to the conditions laid down in Sub-section (5) of Sec.13. Question No. (2): The answer to this question is found in answer to question No. 1 Question No. (3) Payment of tax by a dealer ordinarily will not be dependent on his having realised the tax But if he is prevented from realising the tax on account of the delay on the part of the Sales Tax Department in granting him registration certificate the authority concerned has discretion not to assess him to lax for the period of the delay. 12. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order for costs. A.B.N.Sinha, J. 13 I agree.