JUDGMENT M.U. Issac, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm, carrying on business of running oil and saw mills and dealing on copra and coconut oil. The first respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Badagara assessed the petitioner under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) for the year 1961-62 by his order, Ex. P 1 dated 29-2-1965. "Coconut including copra" is item 35 in Schedule.1 to the State Act; and goods falling under the above description is taxable at 2 Paise in the rupee at the point of last purchase in the State, This Court held in Poulose Bros, v State of Kerala (1963) XIV STC 40 that copra did not fall within the above description, and was not, therefore taxable under the State Act. In the light of this decision, the petitioner was not taxed on the purchase of copra. The Kerala Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act) was passed to get over the difficulty caused by the above decision; and it imposed a tax at the rate of 2 Paise in the rupee on the turnover relating to purchase of copra at the point of last purchase in the State during the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1963. S.4 of the Validation Act provides, among other things, that any tax not assessed under the State Act before the 1st day of April, 1963 may be assessed within three years from the date of publication of this Act and recovered in the manner provided therein. The Validation Act was published on 27th September 1965. In the light of the Validation Act, the first respondent proceeded to assess the petitioner in respect of the purchase of copra during the year 1961-62. After complying with the formalities the first respondent passed an order of assessment Ex. P 4 dated 13-4-1967 making a comprehensive assessment on the total turnover of the petitioner for the above year. This Original Petition has been filed to quash Ex. P 4. 2. The attack made against the impugned assessment in the Original Petition is that it is a reassessment of escaped turnover, that R.33 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 provides a period of three years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates for assessing escaped turnover, and that, therefore Ex. P 4. 2. The attack made against the impugned assessment in the Original Petition is that it is a reassessment of escaped turnover, that R.33 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 provides a period of three years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates for assessing escaped turnover, and that, therefore Ex. P 4 is bad under law, as it has been made beyond the aforesaid period. If Ex. P 4 has only assessed the purchase of copra by the petitioner, the above contention would be unsustainable, as that assessment is one made under the Validation Act, and it has been made within the period of three years permitted by the said Act for making such assessments. The learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that Ex. P 4 was not only in respect of purchase of copra, but it is a comprehensive assessment on the total turnover of the petitioner in respect of the sale of all goods during the year, and that by Ex. P 4 the first respondent has enhanced the turnover in respect of the sale of some of the goods which he assessed under Ex P 1. I have examined both the assessment orders; and this contention cannot be sustained. 3. The total turnover assessed under Ex. P 1 is Rs. 1,92,831-33 and it consists of the following items: Local sale of oil estimated. Rs. 1,52,386-89 Local sale of oil-cake estimated 15, 331-20 Purchase of coit in the mill 394-30 Local sale of timber in the saw mill 22, 729-28 Purchase of coir 1,989-75 Total gross turnover 1,92,831-33 The total under Ex. P-4 is Rs. 20,62,566-25; and it consists of: Saw Mill Section 22,729-28 Coconut and copra accounts 17,29,642-09 Oil Mill Section 2,90,194-88 Total 20,62,566-25 There is no dispute that Rs. 17,29,642-09 mentioned in Ex. P 4 is on account of coconut and copra accounts; and this is a new item to be taxed under the Validation Act. Rs.22,729-28 is on saw mill section; and that this figure is the same both in Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 4. The controversy is only regarding Rs. 2,90,194-88 shown in Ex. P 4 under Oil Mill Section. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount represented the turnover of oil and cake sold by the petitioner and that under Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 4. The controversy is only regarding Rs. 2,90,194-88 shown in Ex. P 4 under Oil Mill Section. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount represented the turnover of oil and cake sold by the petitioner and that under Ex. P 1 the turnover fixed on this account was only Rs. 1,52,386-80 and Rs. 15,331-20. This contention cannot stand on a careful scrutiny of Ex. P 4. The amount of Rs. 2,90,94-88 represents the total price of the copra purchased and crushed in the petitioner's mill plus the total turnover on oil and cake sold during the year less the deduction that the petitioner was entitled to get in respect of oil produced from the said copra and sold within the State. It also includes the two items of purchase of coir mentioned in Ex P 1. All details regarding the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,90,194 88 are given in Ex. P 4. The contention that Ex. P 1, the original assessment, has been revised and enhanced in Ex. P 4 in respect of goods other than copra cannot be sustained. On the other hand, what is seen from Ex. P 4 is that, consequent on the accessibility of copra, the petitioner was given deduction in the sale turnover of coconut oil and cake as allowed by the relevant notification. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised another contention, namely that the purchase of copra, in so far as it was sold by the petitioner in the course of inter state trade, was not liable to tax under the State Act by virtue of S.15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). This point has not been taken in this Original Petition; but it has been raised before the first respondent, who has considered it and rejected it. Ex. P 4 itself shows that Rs. 16,86,827-13 which forms part of the purchase turnover on copra represents the value of coconuts and copra purchased by the petitioners for nonresident principals. Therefore, there can be no dispute that a major part of this copra purchased by the petitioner was sold inter state. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a pure question of law, and it arises on the facts of the case. He was, therefore, permitted to raise the same. 5. Therefore, there can be no dispute that a major part of this copra purchased by the petitioner was sold inter state. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a pure question of law, and it arises on the facts of the case. He was, therefore, permitted to raise the same. 5. S.15 of the Central Act reads as follows: "15. Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale of the purchase of declared goods within a State.-- Every sales tax law of a State shall in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely. (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed two percent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage; (b) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State." Coconut and copra are declared goods; and, therefore, the imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of coconut and copra under the State Act is subject to the limitations contained in the above section. Under the State Act, tax is leviable on the sale of coconut and copra only at the stage of last purchase in the State. They are not liable to tax on any point of sale. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Chetty (1965) 16 STC 231 and in a number of decisions of this Court that tax under the Central Act is not leviable on the inter State sale of goods, if the said sale is not taxable under the State law, if it took place within the State. So, if the State law imposes a tax in respect of any goods only at the point of purchase the sale of such goods inter state is not taxable under the Central Act. So, if the State law imposes a tax in respect of any goods only at the point of purchase the sale of such goods inter state is not taxable under the Central Act. Accordingly, sale of coconut or copra from this State in the course of inter state trade is not taxable under the Central Act; and in this case, no tax was levied from the petitioner on Inter State sale of copra. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that clause (b) of S.15 of the Act applies, whether the inter State sale is liable to tax or not. According to him all that is necessary is that the goods should have been sold inter State; then the tax levied under the State Act shall be refunded to the seller. He further submitted that the word "levied" in clause (b) of S.15 of the Central Act means "imposed' and that, in the case of declared goods sold inter State, whether the inter State sale is taxable or not, no tax can be charged on the sale or purchase of the said goods under the State law. He, therefore, contended that the assessment as per Ex. P4 was bad under law, in so far as it related to the turnover of copra, which has been subsequently sold inter State. 6. The word "levy" is a comprehensive expression. "Levy" means to impose or to charge, and also to collect. In what sense is the word used in a particular provision depends on the context; and it has to be understood in relation to the other words along with which it is used. When construed in that manner, I am clear in my mind that the word "levied" in clause (b) of S.15 of the Central Act means "collected." What this clause states is that "where a tax has been levied" under the State law, "the tax so levied shall be refunded" under the circumstances mentioned in the said clause. "Refund" means to repay; to restore what was taken. If the word "imposed" is substituted in the above clause for the word "levied" it conveys no sense. The word "refund" presupposes a collection or receipt already made; and what this clause provides is that the tax collected under the State law should be refunded under the circumstances mentioned therein. "Refund" means to repay; to restore what was taken. If the word "imposed" is substituted in the above clause for the word "levied" it conveys no sense. The word "refund" presupposes a collection or receipt already made; and what this clause provides is that the tax collected under the State law should be refunded under the circumstances mentioned therein. Therefore, in my view, S.15(b) has application only where tax has been collected under the State law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred me to a Single Bench I decision of the Madras High Court in Thirumurthi Chettiar v State of Madras 1953 (21) STC 439 in support of his contention that actual collection of the tax was not necessary for the application of S.15(b) of the Central Act. In that case, a dealer was assessed to tax under the State law at the point of last purchase, and under the Central Act on inter State sale of the same commodity. S.4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 contains a proviso to the effect that where a tax has been levied under this Section in respect of sale or purchase of declared goods and such are sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The dealer, accordingly applied for refund of the tax paid by him under the State law, which was refused by the Departmental authorities on the ground of limitation. He, therefore filed a writ petition for a direction for refund of the tax paid by him. There was no dispute that the tax had been paid. The court held that the claim was not barred by limitation and allowed the petition. Incidentally the question was raised whether the dealer was entitled to the refund, without paying the tax, or whether it was enough that he applied for refund, as soon as the assessment was made. The court said that it was not necessary that the dealer should pay the tax, and that he could apply for the refund as soon as the assessment was made. I do not get any guidance from this decision on the question raised before me. In the first place, this point did not arise for decision in the Madras Case. The court said that it was not necessary that the dealer should pay the tax, and that he could apply for the refund as soon as the assessment was made. I do not get any guidance from this decision on the question raised before me. In the first place, this point did not arise for decision in the Madras Case. Secondly, the facts of the case are also not quite clear. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner then referred me to the decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in Munshi Abdul Rahiman & Bros. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1967 (20) STC 89 in support of his contention that in the case of declared goods sold inter State, whether that sale is taxable or not, no tax can be levied on the sale or purchase of the said goods under the State Law. In the above case, a dealer was assessed under State law at the point of last purchase in the State. He was also assessed under the Central Act on the Inter State sale of the same goods. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Chetty, 1965 (16) STC 231 the inter State sale was not taxable; and the amount of tax collected under the Central Act had to be refunded to the dealer. The assessing authority set off this amount against the tax assessed under the State law, and demanded the balance. The dealer claimed that by virtue of S.15(b) of the Central Act the demand for payment of the tax assessed under the State law cannot be imposed against him. This claim was upheld by the Court. The following passage states the reason for its decision. "On a plain reading of S.15(b) of the Central Act, there is no doubt whatever that the right to receive refund of State tax, if any, paid in respect of declared goods is acquired the moment the said goods are sold in the course of inter State trade. Actual payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the said sale is neither specifically mentioned in the section nor is it, in our opinion, capable of being implied in the language of the section." This decision really supports the learned counsel, but with great respect, I am unable to agree with it. Actual payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the said sale is neither specifically mentioned in the section nor is it, in our opinion, capable of being implied in the language of the section." This decision really supports the learned counsel, but with great respect, I am unable to agree with it. I am prepared to agree that if a person is assessed under the State Law on the last sale or purchase of any declared goods, and he is also assessed under the Central Act on inter State sale of the same goods and the tax assessed under the Central Act has been collected from him, the demand for the tax assessed under the State law should be enforced against him. This is not because actual collection of tax is not necessary under S.15(b) of the Central Act to refund the same under the circumstances mentioned therein; but because of the fact that when a I person who is liable to pay a certain amount has got a right to get it refunded, the moment it is paid, the payment should not be enforced. This is plain justice and common sense. Why should public time and energy be wasted to enforce a payment, if it is to be refunded to the person who pays it, the moment he does so? Why should such a person be put to the trouble and harassment of raising the money and paying it with one hand to receive it back with the other or the same hand? In such a case law demands a set off of the mutual claims, and only the balance, if any, can be demanded. The larger question that arises for consideration and on which I disagree with the above decision of the Mysore High Court is whether S.15(b) of the Central Act applies even if the inter State sale is not liable to tax. The larger question that arises for consideration and on which I disagree with the above decision of the Mysore High Court is whether S.15(b) of the Central Act applies even if the inter State sale is not liable to tax. The question has been considered by the Mysore High Court; and it stated: "It has no doubt been argued that we must read this section against what is described as the object of the Central Sales Tax Act in the light of the provisions of Art.286 of the Constitution of India; the object is said to be that in respect of inter State trade or commerce, there should not be double taxation, but that such goods should attract tax either under the Central Act or under a State Act. Although in the light of what may be regarded as Legislative history, such statement may not be regarded as wholly unwarranted we do not think that full effect can be given to the argument in the manner contemplated by the counsel on behalf of the State. No better answer thereto is necessary than what their Lordships of the Supreme Court have stated to be the effect and the manner of working of the scheme of charge under the Central Sales Tax Act in the case reported in The State of Mysore v. Maddalam Lakshmiparasimhiah Setty & sons (1965) 16 STC 231 at p.239. Their Lordships pointed out that the charge under S.6 of the Act is itself made subject to other provisions contained in the Act and that operation of such other provisions such as for example proviso appended to sub-s.(1) of S.8 may be to reduce the tax payable under the Central Act to nil. Hence, no question of avoidance of double tax could be relied upon as the only indicator of the object of the statute. The object as we understand is that in respect of good? which are of importance to inter State trade, any State law imposing tax on the transactions of sale or purchase, must be subject to such restrictions as the Parliament may prescribe and those restrictions at present are the ones found in S.15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The object as we understand is that in respect of good? which are of importance to inter State trade, any State law imposing tax on the transactions of sale or purchase, must be subject to such restrictions as the Parliament may prescribe and those restrictions at present are the ones found in S.15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Hence, the simple question is one of purely ascertaining the meaning of the language employed in the said section without any predilection or suggestion derivable from what different people may regard as the object of the statute." 9. Taxes on the sale or 'purchase of goods other than inter State sales is a State subject. Art.286 of the Constitution imposes restrictions on the power of the State to impose sales tax. Clause (1) of this article inhibits every State from imposing any tax on sales taking place outside, as well as sales in the course of import into or export from India. Clause (2) empowers Parliament to make law for formulating principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes in any of the ways mentioned in clause (1). Clause (3) provides that, any law of. a State imposing a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in Inter State trade or commerce, shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as the parliament may by law specify. The Central Act was enacted pursuant to clauses (2) and (3) of Art.286, and also to impose tax on inter State sales. It does not, and cannot impose restrictions or conditions on sale or purchase of goods taking place within any State, except in respect of declared goods. These restrictions and conditions are contained in S.15 of the Central Act. Clause (a) of this Section imposes the restriction that the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods under the State law shall not exceed two per cent, and it shall not be at more than one stage. Consistent with that provision, clause (b) provides that, if the said goods are sold inter State, the tax levied under the State law shall be refunded. Consistent with that provision, clause (b) provides that, if the said goods are sold inter State, the tax levied under the State law shall be refunded. Sometimes it happens, by virtue of the particular provisions contained in the State law, that inter State sale of certain declared goods is not taxable under the Central Act; and at the same time, the State law may expressly provide for the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of the said goods within the State at any one point. In my opinion, it is not the intention of clause (b) of S.15 of the Central Act to exempt the said inter State sale from levy of tax under the State law. The object of this clause is to void double taxation, one under the State law and another under the Central Act, and to subject the levy to the restrictions contained in clause (a) If Parliament intended to totally exempt from levy of sales tax any declared goods or any class of them, it would have made law in that respect. It would not have left that matter to the accident whether the State law imposed the tax at the purchase point or the sale point. 10. What I stated above was the object of enacting S.15 of the Act is also clear from the recommendations of the Taxation Enquiry Commission, on the basis of which S.15 was enacted. The Commission said: "The main condition will be that no State shall have a system of levy other than a single point levy or such specified goods. The tax may either as on the sales or purchases, but it will be recoverable only at the last stage of sale or purchase by a registered dealer. This condition was found necessary to ensure that the tax burden on the goods of importance in inter State trade or commerce is properly regulated as would be the case under any other system of sales tax." Unfortunately, S.15 of the Central Act, as it originally stood did not achieve the above object in clear terms. It was, therefore, amended by Central Act 16 of 1957. Still, the object was not fully achieved; and therefore, it was again amended by Central Act 31 of 1958. It is to be regretted that even after these two amendments, the language employed in S.15 has given rise to this controversy. It was, therefore, amended by Central Act 16 of 1957. Still, the object was not fully achieved; and therefore, it was again amended by Central Act 31 of 1958. It is to be regretted that even after these two amendments, the language employed in S.15 has given rise to this controversy. The statement of objects and reasons of the above amendments also show why these amendments were made, and what was the object of enacting this section. All these things support my conclusion that the legislative intent of enacting clause (b) of S.15 is to avoid double taxation on the sale or purchase of declared goods, and to subject the total tax liability under the State law and the Central Act to the restrictions contained in clause (a) of S.15. I, therefore, hold that an assessee would not be entitled under clause (b) of S.15 of the Central Act to get refund of the tax levied under the State Act on the sale or purchase of any declared goods, when the same goods are sold inter State, unless the inter State sale is liable to tax under the Central Act. 11. In the result, this Original Petition fails; and it is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs.