JUDGMENT H. L. AGRAWAL, C.J. and R. C. PATNAIK, J. - The petitioners by the writ petition have challenged the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Kalahandi Circle (O.P. No. 3), in annexure-2 disallowing adjustment of taxes paid by the petitioners as purchase tax at places other than check-gates. 2. The assessment for the year 1976-77 was completed under section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act by order dated 22nd July 1977 (annexure-1). A sum of Rs. 10,961.75 paid by the dealer in shandies, for which he had also produced receipts granted by the Sales Tax Officers which were held to be valid, was adjusted and demand was raised after allowing adjustment. Subsequently on the basis of a fraud report, the matter was reopened and notice under section 12(8) of the Act was issued to the dealer and out of the amount mentioned above, payments made to different Sales Tax Officers in the local markets and places of interception to the extent of Rs. 10,001.75 were disallowed. A further sum of Rs. 960 paid by the dealer-petitioner to the Sales Tax Officer in-charge of Brahaminigaon Check-gate was also disallowed as it had failed to furnish the required certificate issued by the aforesaid Sales Tax Officer. 3. The stand of the dealer is that he was entitled to all the adjustments under the scheme of the Act and otherwise it amounts to levy of multi-point tax without any sanction of law. Section 8 of the Act prescribes the points at which goods may be taxed or exempted and on reference to section 8, it was submitted that under the scheme of the said provision, the same goods cannot be taxed under the Act at more than one point in the same series of sales or purchases by successive dealers. This proposition was not disputed on behalf of the Revenue and it also finds full support from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 1, where on a review of the provisions of the Act, it was observed that the scope of the proviso to section 8, as it stood, excluded multi-point taxation. This question need not detain ourselves as the proposition is not disputed on behalf of the Revenue. 4. This question need not detain ourselves as the proposition is not disputed on behalf of the Revenue. 4. To answer the question, the third proviso to rule 36 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules may be usefully noticed : "Provided also that if any tax is paid to any officer-in-charge of check post or barrier, receipt for such payment of tax issued by the officer-in-charge of check post or barrier, shall be adjusted against the admitted tax payable by a dealer before furnishing a return if a certificate to that effect is obtained from the Sales Tax Officer." Apart from this proviso, we do not find any other provision for adjustment of taxes paid by a dealer at places other than the check post or barrier as in the present case. But in view of the fact that under the scheme of the Act multi-point tax is not intended, we feel inclined to hold that the dealer should be entitled to claim adjustment of taxes which are paid for the same commodities by him at places other than the check-gates in similar manner. In this case we find that the dealer had paid the tax to different Sales Tax Officers after obtaining receipts in proof of the payments. But in the subsequent assessment proceeding, these payments were disallowed on the sole ground that there was no such provision for adjustment in the statute. In spite of this omission, the court should give such an interpretation which should subserve the purpose of the legislation and advance its intention so as to escape the peril of challenge in a court of law. 5. We would, therefore, hold that if the dealer paid sales tax at places other than check posts or barriers and produced satisfactory proof thereof, he is entitled to adjustment of the amount paid as sales tax while computing the tax due. 6. With respect to the second item of Rs. 960 which was although said to have been paid at the check-gate but certificate from the Sales Tax Officer was not filed, in view of the scheme of the proviso to rule 36 requiring the filing of the certificate by the dealer for adjustment, the dealer is not entitled to any relief on this account. The sales Tax Officer was correct in disallowing the deduction to that extent. 7. The sales Tax Officer was correct in disallowing the deduction to that extent. 7. In the result, the application succeeds in part to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority (O.P. No. 3) for a fresh computation of sales tax payable by the petitioners after allowing adjustments as indicated above. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Writ petition partly allowed.