Judgment :- 1. The grounds on which the validity of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged in this petition, we dealt with in detail in our judgment in O.P. No. 3351 of 1969 which we pronounced just now. We need not go through those grounds in this petition again. For the reasons we have stated in that judgment, the contentions that the Act is bad as violative of Art.14 and 19 of the Constitution, as well as the interpretation, sought to be placed on S.8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as amended, and S.9 of the Act, are rejected. 2. The only further question in this case relates to the contention raised based on S.10 of the Act. It was urged that if amounts had been collected only as "contingent deposits" the collection cannot be said to be towards tax as envisaged by the section and so the petitioner will be entitled to the exemption under the section. We shall extract S.10: "10. Exemption from liability to pay tax in certain cases. (1) Where any sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of November, 1964 and the 9th day of June. 1969, and the dealer effecting such sale has not collected any tax under the principal Act on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnover relating to such sale and no such tax could have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal Act by this Act had not been made, than, notwithstanding anything contained in S.9 or the said amendments, the dealer shall not be liable to pay any tax under the principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such sale or such part of the turnover relating to such sale. (2) For the purposes of sub section (1), the burden of proving that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sab referred to in sub section (1) or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale." 3. (2) For the purposes of sub section (1), the burden of proving that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sab referred to in sub section (1) or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale." 3. Under the section all inter-State sales from 1011 1964 to 9 61969 are exempted if the dealer had not collected any tax under the principal Act on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such sales. It is said that when the money was taken by the petitioner an undertaking had also been given that it will be returned to the depositor if it was found that there was no tax liability. So, it is submitted there had been no collection. This contention is sought to be supported on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore and another v. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and another ((1960) 11 STC 734). The question that was considered by the Supreme Court arose with reference to the provision in S.11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. We shall read S.11 of that Act: 11. (1) No person who is not a registered dealer shall collect any amount by way of tax under this Act; nor shall a registered dealer make any such collection except in accordance with such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed. (2) Every person who collects any amount by way of tax under this Act, shall pay. over to the Government within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, such collections as are in excess of the tax paid by him for the period during which the collections were made or, in case he has not paid any amount for the period in question, he shall pay over to Government all the amounts so collected by him, and in default of such payment, the amounts may be recovered as if they were arrears of land revenue." 4. R.11 (7) (ii) of the rules framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act also contained a similar provision. R.11 (7) (ii) of the rules framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act also contained a similar provision. It provided that the dealer shall pay in full the amount or amounts collected by him by way of tax or taxes to the Government on or before the 31st July of the year succeeding that in which such collection was made. The dealer had taken some deposits and the question arose whether the taking of those deposits will amount to collection by way of tax, and dealing with the question, their Lordships observed as follows: "After arguments as regards the proper interpretation of the words "by way of tax under this Act" occurring in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.11 bad been advanced by the learned counsel on either side on the lines above indicated, it was realised that on the facts of all these cases, there was no "collection" at all, whether "by way of tax" or otherwise, so as to bring the amounts received and held by the respondents within the scope of S.11. We have already set out the questions referred, which would clearly indicate that the amounts were received by the Cement Marketting Co. and by the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. and the Minerva Mills Ltd. only as "a deposit" to cover"a possible contingency of these companies being held liable to pay the tax. That this was the real nature of the transaction was never indispute. Indeed even the Commissioner of Sales Tax in making the reference in the three cases made it clear that the amounts were received by the companies on the definite understanding and condition that they were to be held only "as deposits" to be refunded when the company in question was held not liable to include the relevant sales in its taxable turnover. The construction on which the Sales Tax Authorities proceeded was that the Act made no difference between one type of receipt and another, and that any receipt of money by a dealer from the purchaser was a "collection by way of tax" within S.11(2) of the Act, provided it had some relation to sales tax, and that it mattered not that the receipt was merely a deposit by the payer carried to suspense account, the amount being received on the express understanding and definite condition that the same would be refunded in the event of the dealer being held not liable to sales tax on the transaction in regard to which the "deposit" was made. We are unable to agree in this construction of the expression "collection" occurring in S.11 (2) of the Act. Where an amount is received merely by way of deposit, on the express understanding or undertaking as in these cases, the company held the money as a mere custodian, and on the fulfilment of the condition became a trustee for the depositor. It is sufficient to state that when once the tax authorities determined that the proceeds of the sales in question were not within the taxable turnover of the company, the beneficial ownership became vested in the depositors and the company ceased to have any right to continue to hold the moneys, The fact that the physical control of the moneys passed from the "depositor" to the "dealer" did not render the receipt a "collection" within S.11(2) of the Act. We should not be understood as saying that collections by a dealer from a purchaser of amounts not lawfully demandable by him are not "collections" within S.11, merely because the purchaser could in law make a claim for refund and enforce that right in appropriate proceedings. But such a case is far removed from the ones before us, where the payment by the purchaser was conditional and made on an express contract that the sum would be refunded in the contingency of the dealer being held not to be assessable in respect of the relevant turnover. On the facts of these appeals we are unable to hold that there has been any "collection" by way of tax of any amount under S.11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948." 5. On the facts of these appeals we are unable to hold that there has been any "collection" by way of tax of any amount under S.11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948." 5. It is submitted by counsel that the position so far as S.10 is concerned is the same and that the amounts received by the petitioner herein were by way of contingent deposits and therefore there was no collection of tax and the decision in The State of Mysore and another v. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and another ((1960) 11 S.T.C. 734) must apply. What was decided therein is that the person who received the amounts was only a custodian of the amounts when the receipt had been on the understanding or undertaking that he will hold it till the tax liability is ascertained and if it was found that no tax was due, restore the amounts to the depositor. It became certain afterwards that there was no tax liability. In such cases, it was ruled that the dealer held it as a mere custodian till the fulfilment of the condition (determination of the question of liability) and became a trustee for the depositor on the fulfilment of the condition (determination that there was no liability). It was also held that on the determination by the taxing authorities that there was no tax liability, the beneficial ownership of the money became vested in the depositors and the dealer ceased to have any right to continue to keep the money. This principle cannot apply to a case where the deposits taken had become amounts received towards tax, on the transactions becoming exigible to tax. Though factually at the time the deposits were received assuming that they were really received as contingency deposits, a question which we are not called upon here to decide as it has to be determined by the assessing authority the position that the amounts were received as contingent deposits was altered by the amendments introduced by the Act which made the particular transactions liable to tax. These provisions had retrospective effect. So there is no question of the beneficial ownership in the money vesting with the depositor. The conditions postulated in the decision have therefore not arisen on the facts of this case. These provisions had retrospective effect. So there is no question of the beneficial ownership in the money vesting with the depositor. The conditions postulated in the decision have therefore not arisen on the facts of this case. On the other hand, we think that the very condition under which the amounts were deposited with the petitioner would postulate that the money should be utilised for the payment of the tax if the transactions were held to be or become exigible to tax under the Act. This is not a case where there was no collection on the ground that no such tax could be levied or collected. We have therefore to conclude that the petitioner who had taken, what are called contingency deposits to meet the tax due on the concerned turnover is not entitled to the exemption under S.10. 6. The decisions in the State of Mysore and another v. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and another (1960) 11 STC. 734) and in B. D. Narasimha Setty & Another v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle, Non-resident, Madras 7 ((1963) 14 S.T.C. 94) and in V. V. Dyavakkalavar and Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri. and another ((1970) 26 S.T.C. 558) as well as that in Campbell and another v. Inland Revenue Commissioners ((1967) 1 Chancery 651) relied on by counsel for the petitioner have no application We negative the contention that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under S.10 of the Act. 7. We dismiss this Original Petition. There will be no order as to costs. A N.K. Dismissed.