Judgment S. P. Sinha, J. 1. At the instance of the dealer, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal has referred the undermentioned question under Sec.33 (1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bihar Act 19 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for opinion of this Court: whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that a deduction of Rs.1,32,710 claimed by the dealer towards sales tax realised from his customers but not shown separately in the sale memos was not admissible in terms of Sub-sections (1) (b) and (2) (a) (ii) of Sec.7 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 ? 2. The relevant facts are that for the period of assessment 1965-66, the dealer claimed to deduct a sum of Rs.1,32,710 from the gross turnover in terms of Sec.7 (1) (b) and 7 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. In support of its claim, the dealer has stated that all the sale memos issued by it indicated that the value realised under the sale memo was inclusive of sales tax. Each sale memo bore a rubber-stamp marking "including tax". The assessing officer, however, did not accept the claim for deduction holding that there was no evidence to the effect that the sales taxes had been collected as such on each sale made. The dealer then carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The sale memos were produced before him and it was also stated in argument before him that ledger for every goods account had been separately maintained and taxes realised had been shown separately in each such account. Such being the position, it was argued that the deduction claimed by the dealer was admissible. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted the dealers contention and observed that "to my mind it appears that sales tax was actually collected along with the sale prices in each cash memo and it did not lose its identity and, hence, it is directed that the deduction should be allowed from the gross turnover". 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted the dealers contention and observed that "to my mind it appears that sales tax was actually collected along with the sale prices in each cash memo and it did not lose its identity and, hence, it is directed that the deduction should be allowed from the gross turnover". 3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes then carried the matter in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal on the ground that it did not appear from the sale bills that the sum of Rs.1,32,710.38 had been charged in the said bills towards sales tax "as such" and, therefore, it could not be deducted in computing the taxable turnover of the dealer. Before the Tribunal, the dealer referred to the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes based as they were upon the facts as mentioned before him and urged that on those facts the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes must be upheld. The Tribunal observed that although the arguments made on behalf of the dealer "are indeed very persuasive", but on a plain reading of the provisions contained in Sec.7 (1) (b) and 7 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act unless the amount received as sales tax had been shown as such in the sale memos issued, the claim for deduction was not permissible. Dealing with the expression "sales tax collected as such" as occurring in the said two provisions of the Act, the Tribunal observed that the literal interpretation was that "the payment of the tax should be received so characterised. In other words, even at the time of receipt of the payment, the tax amount should be received separately or clearly known". With these observations, the Tribunal thought that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner allowing the dealers claim of deduction of the said sum of Rs.1,32,710 out of the gross turnover was illegal. The disallowance of the claim as made by the assessing officer was restored. These are the relevant facts concerning the question. 4. Section 7 of the Act lays down the necessary provision for determining the taxable turnover of a dealer. In determining the taxable turnover, certain items as specified in that section are to be deducted from the gross turnover. The disallowance of the claim as made by the assessing officer was restored. These are the relevant facts concerning the question. 4. Section 7 of the Act lays down the necessary provision for determining the taxable turnover of a dealer. In determining the taxable turnover, certain items as specified in that section are to be deducted from the gross turnover. In respect of the general sales tax, Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.7 requires the deduction of the amount of sales tax actually collected as such, if any, along with the sale prices received or receivable in respect of sales of goods. An identical provision is there in respect of special sales tax. There also a deduction has to be made of the amount of sales tax actually collected as such out of the gross turnover. The question, therefore, is : what is the meaning of the expression "collected as such". Does it mean that in every sale memo, sales tax realised must be shown separately from the price realised as the value of the goods sold, or, does it mean that even though it is not so indicated in the sale memo, the identity of the sales tax realised on the sale value of the goods can still be ascertained To put it in other words : Is the amount shown in the sale memo only the value of the goods sold, or, whether the amount shown includes partly the value of the goods sold and partly sales tax realised on the sale of goods The idea underlying the use of the expression "collected as such" obviously seems to be that if there is evidence to indicate that part of the amount in a sale represented the sales tax, it must be said that the sales tax had been collected as such on the said transaction and it has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the taxable turnover. This Court in the case of Malpani Brothers V/s. State of Bihar [1974] 34 S. T. C.234, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar [1970] 26 S. T. C.254 (S. C.), observed that the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case did support the contention raised on behalf of the dealer. The contention of the dealer was that he can show even otherwise, namely, from his account books, etc. , that he had collected tax separately from the buyers. The legal position, therefore, seems to be clear that for claiming deduction in terms of Sec.7 (1 ) (b) and 7 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act, all that is necessary is that there must be evidence, not necessarily only the sale memos, to indicate that apart from the sale value of the goods sold, an amount had been collected by way of sales tax as such. If such evidence is available with the dealer, and it is found by the department to be a piece of acceptable evidence, the claim must be allowed. 5. Now, in the instant case, the dealer produced such evidence before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. He felt satisfied with the evidence produced before him and came to the conclusion that sales tax had, in fact, been collected as such, though such sales tax had not been shown separately in the cash memos. When the dealers claim had been admitted in view of such evidence, it was necessary for the Tribunal, while reversing the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to hold that the evidence on which the deduction was allowed was not a reliable piece of evidence. The Tribunal, however, on the contrary, observed, on hearing the argument made on behalf of the dealer, that "these arguments are indeed very persuasive". Holding the argument made on behalf of the dealer to be persuasive, obviously meant that the Tribunal did not find anything wrong with the evidence accepted by the Deputy Commissioner as indicating that sales tax had been collected as such by the dealer. Naturally, the revision should, therefore, have been dismissed. The Tribunal, however, allowed the revision on an interpretation, as made by it, of the expression "sales tax actually collected as such", but without applying its mind to the facts found. It cannot be gainsaid that law cannot be applied in isolation of facts. Naturally, the revision should, therefore, have been dismissed. The Tribunal, however, allowed the revision on an interpretation, as made by it, of the expression "sales tax actually collected as such", but without applying its mind to the facts found. It cannot be gainsaid that law cannot be applied in isolation of facts. Since the facts as found by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which were put before the Tribunal by the learned counsel of the dealer have not been found to be unacceptable or wrong, it must be held that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the deduction of Rs.1,32,710.38 as claimed by the dealer towards sales tax realised from his customers was not an admissible deduction in terms of Sub-sections (1) (b) and (2) (a) (ii) of Sec.7 of the Act. The question referred is, accordingly, answered in the negative. The dealer shall be entitled to costs ; hearing fee Rs.250 (two hundred and fifty) only.