ORDER A.P. Sen, J 1. This is a reference under section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 (II of 1959), at the instance of the assessee, made by the Tribunal of the following question of law arising out of its order in Sales Tax (Second) Appeal No. 79-II/66, dated 11th August 1966, for our opinion, namely: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the claim of exemption in a sum of Rs. 2,82,000/- on the ground that the said sum represents the value of goods taxable at the first point purchases from registered dealers was not subjected to tax at the first point, was proper and legal". 2. The material facts are these. The assessee, M/S Srigopal Rameshwardas, Jabalpur is a registered dealer engaged in purchase and sale of grains, oil-seeds, kirana, vegetable oils, etc. It is also engaged in the business of commission agency. For the period from 1-11-59 to 20-10-60, the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpar, by his order dated 30th July 1962, allowed the assessee a deduction in the sum of Rs, 2,41,956/- from its taxable turn-over under section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act, in respect of oil seeds purchased from M/S United Commercial Corporation Jabalpur on the basis of declaration furnished by the assesses. It was subsequently noticed that the deduction had been wrongly allowed as these goods were not subjected to tax in the hands of M/S United Commercial Corporation, and, therefore, a notice under section 19 (1) was issued to the assessee to show cause against inclusion of this purchase in its taxable turnover during the relevant year for the purpose of bringing the transaction to tax. In response to the notice, the assessee objected to the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings on the ground that its claim for exemption under section 2 (r) (ii) was rightly allowed. The contention was that the seller was registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act vide Registration Certificate No. LDG/472 issued on 14-3-1960, and was thus a registered dealer on the date of purchase of the oil-seeds by the assessee. The contention was that the seller was registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act vide Registration Certificate No. LDG/472 issued on 14-3-1960, and was thus a registered dealer on the date of purchase of the oil-seeds by the assessee. It was, therefore, asserted that the goods being taxable at the first point was assessable in the hands of M/S United Commercial Corporation, inasmuch as it's registration certificate was still in force on the date of the transaction in question and merely because this had been subsequently cancelled would not shift the incidence of tax liability on the assessee, who was merely the purchasing dealer. The contention was rejected by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground that the assessee had to fulfill two conditions to be eligible for the deduction and as the goods were admittedly not subjected to tax at the first point in the hands of M/S United Commercial Corporation, they were not eligible for any deduction from the taxable turnover of the assessee, under section 2 (r) (ii), i.e., the second condition therein, was not fulfilled. This view has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the effect of cancellation of the registration certificate of M/S United Commercial Corporation with retrospective effect need not be considered as it was not relevant for the present purpose, as the exemption claimed under section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act could not be allowed in view of the undisputed position that the transaction was not taxed at the first point and, therefore, the Additional Commissioner had rightly brought the transaction to tax, in the hands of the assessee. 3. Before dealing with this reference, it is necessary to set out a few more facts. The registration certificate of M/S United Commercial Corporation, was cancelled from the date of issue. It appears that one C.L Jain was a dealer registered under the Act in Circle No. 11 of Jabalpur city. He ran into heavy arrears of tax and, therefore the authorities cancelled his registration certificate. After this, the said C.L. Jain procured a fresh registration certificate in Circle No. I, Jabalpur, on 14-3-1960, under the name and style "M/S United Commercial Corporation". He ran into heavy arrears of tax and, therefore the authorities cancelled his registration certificate. After this, the said C.L. Jain procured a fresh registration certificate in Circle No. I, Jabalpur, on 14-3-1960, under the name and style "M/S United Commercial Corporation". When the true identity of the person carrying on business in that assumed name was discovered his registration certificate granted in that name, was cancelled with retrospective effect. This order of cancellation was, however, quashed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 177 of 1962, dated 24-10-1964, on the ground that the dealer was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Thereafter, the authorities served a notice on him to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and, after hearing him, again cancelled the registration certificate. The registration certificate was in force on the date of the transaction. Nevertheless, because of these proceedings, no assessment proceedings were actually started against M/S United Commercial Corporation and, admittedly, no assessment has been made. It is common ground that, although the goods were taxable at the point of first sale, the goods purchased by the assessee from M/S United Commercial Corporation were not taxed in the hands of the first seller. 4. The question for consideration is, whether section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act entities the assessee to claim a deduction from his taxable turnover in respect of the transaction in question, although the goods were admittedly not subjected to tax in the hands of the selling dealer. The learned counsel for the assessee contends: the goods were taxable at the first point of the sale in the hands of M/S United Commercial Corporation. The cancellation of its registration certificate was effective only from the date of service of the cancellation order on the selling dealer under section 15 (1), read with Rule 13 (3). The authorities merely by fore bearing to make an assessment on that dealer at the point of first sale cannot be permitted to shift the incidence of tax on the assessee, who acted on the faith and representation of a registration certificate duly granted by the authorities. It is urged, under the charging provision, section 4, the incidence of taxation is on persons registered as dealers who are engaged in the business of selling or supplying goods. It is urged, under the charging provision, section 4, the incidence of taxation is on persons registered as dealers who are engaged in the business of selling or supplying goods. It, therefore, follows that the tax liability should really fall on M/S United Commercial Corporation, who admittedly were a dealer holding a registration certificate on the date of the transaction nor can the authorities allow that dealer to escape his liability. 5. We are not impressed with the submission for reasons which we shall presently state. As the Tribunal rightly observed, the question whether or not the cancellation of the registration certificate held by M/S United Commercial Corporation with retrospective effect was permissible is not relevant for the present purposes nor is it necessary to examine this aspect. It may be that its liability still continues by reason of section 15 (10), read with Rule 13 (3). That however does not absolve the assessee of its own liability to pay tax on the transaction in question. The unamended section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act read, as follows: "2 (r) 'Taxable turnover' in relation to any period means that part of a dealer's turnover for such period which remains after deducting there from - (ii) the sale price of goods on which tax is payable at the first point, and which have been subjected to tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act. . . . . . ." The first of such conditions was that the goods must be taxable at the first point. There is no dispute that this condition is fulfilled in the present case. The second condition was that such goods must have been subjected to tax at the first point. The goods purchased by the assesse from M/s United Commercial Corporation admittedly were not subjected to tax at the first point. The second condition was thus not fulfilled. The Tribunal was, therefore right in its view that the transaction was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 6. In M/s Dhanpal Pitamberlal Patni Vs. The Commr. of Sales Tax M.P. M.C.C. No. 292 of 1965, Decided on the 21st July 1966, this Court held, where the goods had not been subjected to tax at the first point, they are liable to be taxed in the hands of the purchasing dealer, stating. 6. In M/s Dhanpal Pitamberlal Patni Vs. The Commr. of Sales Tax M.P. M.C.C. No. 292 of 1965, Decided on the 21st July 1966, this Court held, where the goods had not been subjected to tax at the first point, they are liable to be taxed in the hands of the purchasing dealer, stating. "Section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act, as it stood at the material time, permitted a deduction from taxable turnover of the sale price of goods on which tax is payable at the first point, and which have been subjected to tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sales Tax is no doubt payable at the first point on sales of kerosene, but, in the present case, the second condition mentioned in Section 2 (r) (ii) is not fulfilled. On the facts found by the Tribunal, it is clear that the kerosene oil sold by the assessee had not been subjected to tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The question posed before us must, therefore, be and is answered in the negative" This decision was followed by this court in Barikrao Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax. M.P. Indor. M.P. No. 436 of 1966, Decided 3-3-1967 we find no reason to depart from that view. This is a conclusion which follows from the plain language of the section. 7. On a true construction of section 2 (r) (ii), it is evident that the two conditions required to be fulfilled, are not alternate conditions for earning an exception. The two parts are separated by the word "and", and they must be read conjunctively. It, accordingly, follows that both conditions must be fulfilled. On the facts found by the Tribunal, it is clear that the oil-seeds purchased by the assessee had not been subjected to tax, in accordance with the provisions of Act, and, therefore, that part of the turnover was not liable to be deducted form its taxable turnover, under section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act. 8. We would, accordingly answer the reference by holding that the disallowance of the claim for exemption by the sale-tax authorities was proper. The Commissioner shall have his costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs 150/- if certified.