JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a Plaintiff?s appeal against the reversing decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in a suit for money. The Plaintiff, a registered firm, carrying on business at Berhampur, supplied 1529.5 quintals of rice to the Assistant Director (Food), Government of India, between 9-1-1965 and 29-3-1965 under the Orissa Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964. Payment for the aforesaid supplies was effected on 5-4-1965. The Plaintiff is a registered dealer both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act. Sales tax on these supplies had not been charged by the Plaintiff or paid by the Defendants. The Defendants were disputing liability of sales tax on the footing that applies effected under the Orissa Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964, did not constitute sale. The Plaintiff had been demanding the necessary certificate that if tax would at all be payable, the Defendants would undertake to pay the same. On 1-8-1965, the Assistant Director (Food) issued the requisite certificate (Ext. 43). On 21.3-1906, the Plaintiff was assessed to sales tax on these transactions the Sales Tax Officer having overruled the objection of the Plaintiff that the transactions were not (sic) to sales tax. On 26-4-1966, the Plaintiff deposited the tax demand and on 3-7-1968, finding no other way to recover the amount from the Defendants, filed the suit. 2. The Defendants took the stand that the Plaintiff should have contested the levy of sales tax by going up in appeal under the statute and should not have agreed to satisfy the demand. Sales tax is payable by the seller and not by the buyer and in the absence of a contract between the procuring agent (Plaintiff) and the Defendants to the contrary, it is an incidence which had to be borne by the Plaintiff only. The Defendants had no liability for the same. The certificate issued on 1-8-1965 by the Assistant Director (Food) was not valid and binding on the Union of India as that authority had not been duly authorised by the President of India to enter into any contract on behalf of the Union of India as provided under Article 299 of the Constitution. 3. The learned trial Judge came to find that the supply under the aforesaid Orissa Order virtually was a sale and the transactions were, therefore, eligible to tax. 3. The learned trial Judge came to find that the supply under the aforesaid Orissa Order virtually was a sale and the transactions were, therefore, eligible to tax. The Defendants were liable to reimburse the Plaintiff to the extent of the tax demanded and Ext. 43 bound the Defendants. He accordingly decreed the suit. 4. The Defendants in appeal challenged their liability and disputed the conclusions of the learned trial Judge. The appellate Court having agreed with the contentions of the Defendants reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. This reversing decree of the learned appellate Judge is assailed in second appeal. 5. Mr. Murty for the Appellant contends that sales tax is an indirect tax and though under the statute it is payable by the registered dealer, it is an incidence which can be passed on to the buyer. Sales tax ordinarily would be a part of the sales price and but for the dispute regarding eligibility of sales tax which the Defendants were raising, the Plaintiff would have charged the same when the transactions took place. With the payment of the bills on 5-4-1965, there was not an end of the transactions. The Plaintiff had been demanding the under taking which ultimately was given under Ext. 43. Ext. 43 is, therefore, not an independent contract but is in continuation of the dealings which the Defendants had been carrying on with the Plaintiff. Article 229 of the Constitution has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and Ext. 43 bound the Union of India so far as reimbursement of sales tax was concerned. 6. Ext. 43 was to the following effect: No. KUR/Proc/Admn-VI/S.T/65/2373(2) SALES TAX DECLARATION. Dated, 1-8-1965. This is to certify that M/s. Razzak Rice & Oil Mills, Berhampur have booked rice of the following consignment, on behalf of the President of India, in pursuance of the Orissa Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1964, Order No. 1738 dated 1-12-1965 in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Department of Food). If the party is made liable to pay any purchase or Sales Tax in accordance with the provision of law in force at future date, the President of India hereby undertake to reimburse the amount of tax to the party. Particulars of The Consignment Booked from Berhampur to Destination indicated in the statement. Railway Receipt No. & date as indicated in the statement. Wagon No .. Particulars of The Consignment Booked from Berhampur to Destination indicated in the statement. Railway Receipt No. & date as indicated in the statement. Wagon No .. as indicated in the statement. Quantity of Rice. Qts. 1,529.50.000 Rate .. as indicated in the statement. Bill No. & Date...as indicated in the statement. Total amount. Rs. 98,861.00 (Ninety-eight thousand eight hundred sixty-one rupees only). Admittedly Ext. 43 contained an unqualified undertaking that if sales tax would be demanded in respect of the transactions, the Defendants would reimburse the Plaintiff to the extent of such demand. Both the Courts below have found that the transactions were "sale" and, therefore, were eligible to sales tax. Very recently, a Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Shri Jagannathpur Rice Mill A.H.O. No. 11 of 191-D/5-2-1974, disposed of on 5th February, 1974) has held similar transactions to be "sale". 7. The Defendants have taken the stand that sales tax is a burden which the registered dealer has to meet and not the buyer. There is no dispute that the initial liability is of the registered dealer. While he may not collect the tax from the buyer, he is bound to pay the same under the law. In the case of Tata Iron & Steel & Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1958) 9 S.T.C. 267 , Das C.J. speaking for the majority of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court said: The argument on this point is that sales tax is an indirect tax on the consumer. The idea is that the seller will pass it on to his purchasers and collect it from them. If that is the nature of the sales tax then, urges the learned Attorney-General, it cannot be imposed retrospectively after the sale transaction has been concluded by the passing of title from the seller to the buyer, for it cannot, at that stage, be passed on to the purchaser. According to him the seller collects the sales tax from the purchaser on the occasion of the sale. Once that time goes past, the seller loses the chance of realising it from the purchaser and if it cannot be realised from the purchaser, it cannot be called sales tax. In our judgment this argument is not sound. According to him the seller collects the sales tax from the purchaser on the occasion of the sale. Once that time goes past, the seller loses the chance of realising it from the purchaser and if it cannot be realised from the purchaser, it cannot be called sales tax. In our judgment this argument is not sound. From the point of view of the economist and as an economic theory, sales tax may be an indirect tax on the consumers, but legally it need not be so. Under the 1947 Act the primary liability to pay the sales tax, so far as the State is concerned, is on the seller. Indeed before the amendment of the 1947 Act by the amending Act the sellers had no authority to collect the sales tax as such from the purchaser. The seller could undoubtedly have put up the price so as to include the sales tax which he would have to pay but he could not realise any sales tax as such from the purchaser. That circumstance could not prevent the sales tax imposed on the seller to be any the less sales tax on the sale of goods. The circumstance that the 1947 Act, after the amendment, permitted the seller who was a registered dealer to collect the sales tax as a tax from the purchaser does not do away with the primary liability of the seller to pay the sales tax. This is further made clear by the fact that the registered dealer need not, if he so pleases or chooses, collect the tax from the purchaser and sometimes by reason of competition with other registered dealers be may find it profitable to sell his goods and to retain his old customers even at the sacrifice of the sales tax. This also makes it clear that the sales tax need not be passed on to the purchasers and this fact does not alter the real nature of the tax which, by the express provisions of the law, is cast upon the seller. The buyer is under no liability to pay sales tax in addition to the agreed sale price unless the contract specifically provides otherwise.... The buyer is under no liability to pay sales tax in addition to the agreed sale price unless the contract specifically provides otherwise.... In the case of George Cakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras (1961) 12 S.T.C. 476 , the Supreme Court approved the dictum laid down by Goddard, L.J. in the case of Love v. Norman Wright (Builders) Ltd. (1944) 1 All. E.R. 618. Where an article is taxed, whether by purchase tax, customs duty, or excise duty, the tax becomes part of the price which ordinarily the buyer will have to pay. The price of an ounce of tobacco is what it is because of the rate of tax, but on a sale there is only one consideration though made up of cost plus profit plus tax. So, if a seller offers goods for sale, it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer. If the buyer agrees to the price, it is not for him to consider how it is made up or whether the seller has included tax or not. Dealing with the self-same question in the case of Union of India v. Jagannathpur Rice Mill ILR (1971) Cutt 339. I summarized the position of law thus: ...The legal position in regard to sales tax can be restated thus. It is a burden on a registered dealer which can be passed on to his purchaser. It is open to the registered dealer not to realise the tax from the buyer. In the present case the Plaintiff-dealer never wanted the sales tax to be borne by it, nor was it stipulated that the transactions would be free of sales tax and the buyer would not be saddled with the incidence of sales tax. On the other hand, the Defendant had undertaken to bear it provided it was a burden created under law. When the demand was raised under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act the undertaking of the Defendant became operative and the Plaintiff became entitled to reimbursement. Public duty in the present case required the Plaintiff to make the sale and did not cast the liability of making the sale free of sales tax, nor did it relieve the purchaser of the liability to pay sales tax. Public duty in the present case required the Plaintiff to make the sale and did not cast the liability of making the sale free of sales tax, nor did it relieve the purchaser of the liability to pay sales tax. Thus in regard to payment of sales tax no provision was made in the Order keeping the dealer or the purchaser in view. The general law was allowed to hold the field. If the Defendants had not been contending that sales tax was not eligible on the transactions the Plaintiffs case is that, he would have collected the same contemporaneously by showing it in the respective bills. Because the Defendants had been disputing their liability on the ground that the transactions were not eligible to tax, the Plaintiff had been demanding for a certificate incorporating the undertaking of future liability. Ext. 43 cannot be said to be an independent transaction. Admittedly the Assistant Director (Food) was taking delivery of the consignments of rice and it is he who was making the payments for the same. But for the dispute regarding eligibility of sales tax in respect of the transactions, it is he who would have made the payments. The Plaintiff had been insisting upon payment of sales tax and the said Assistant Director ultimately gave the undertaking. I do not think in the facts of the case, the bar of Article 299 of the Constitution can indeed be raised. There is another approach to the matter. This is not a case where there was any competition in the market and, therefore, the Plaintiff was anxious to bear the incidence of sales tax. In the commercial world, incidence of sales tax is always transferable and the Plaintiff in this case would also have done that. The Union of India having given the undertaking to make the payment, it does not sound to reason that a dispute should be raised when the Plaintiff demands to be reimbursed on the plea that the undertaking had been given by a person not competent to bind the Union of India particularly in the facts of such a case. 8. There is no question of limitation as in terms, for a suit u/s 69 of the Contract Act, the cause of action would arise only when the Plaintiff is made to pay for the Defendants. Ext. 8. There is no question of limitation as in terms, for a suit u/s 69 of the Contract Act, the cause of action would arise only when the Plaintiff is made to pay for the Defendants. Ext. 43 shows that the cause of action would arise only when such an event happens. The demand of sales tax was satisfied by the Plaintiff on 26-4-1966 and the suit has been filed on 3-7-1968. 9. I am of the definite view that the Plaintiff?s claim has to succeed. I would accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court. The Plaintiff shall have its costs through out. Final Result : Allowed