Judgment :- MISHRA, J. The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore Division, is the petitioner herein. He has moved this Court in revision under section38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the judgment and order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, under which the assessee/respondent's appeal against assessment under section7-A of the Act on a turnover of Rs. 33, 940 separately besides the assessment under section 7 on the total turnover of Rs. 71, 021 which is inclusive of the said amount of Rs. 33, 940 has been to be untenable and unenforceable. 2. The only question that has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal and raised before us in the petition is, whether assessing the turnover of Rs. 33, 940 under section 7-A separately amounts to double taxation. The Tribunal has said that taxing separately under section 7-A when the amount of Rs. 33, 940 has been included in the total turnover upon which the tax had been assessed earlier, amounts to double taxation. 3. The assessee is a dealer in gold and silver jewellery. He reported a total turnover of Rs. 33, 710 for the year 1977-78. The taxing officer examined the accounts and found that the accounts were not correct and complete for certain reasons like high gross profit and non-maintenance of detailed accounts for the stock and made an addition of 10 per cent. for the defects and estimated the total turnover at Rs. 37, 081 on old jewels purchased after February 19, 1978 at 1 per cent. for Rs. 27, 543 and again on old jewels purchased between February 20, 1978 and March 31, 1978 at 2 per cent. for Rs. 6, 397. Having done so, the assessing officer found Rs. 37, 081 under the head "sales of gold and silver jewels" after adding 10 per cent. for the defects. In addition he treated Rs. 33, 940 as the taxable turnover under section 7-A. He accordingly, taxed the total turnover of Rs. 71, 021 under section 7 and out of that a sum of Rs. 33, 940 separately under section 7-A. The assessee objected to this sort of assessment on the ground that it amounted to double taxation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the assessing officer and dismissed appeal. The Tribunal however found as above and allowed the appeal holding that the turnover of Rs. 33, 940 separately under section 7-A. The assessee objected to this sort of assessment on the ground that it amounted to double taxation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the assessing officer and dismissed appeal. The Tribunal however found as above and allowed the appeal holding that the turnover of Rs. 33, 940 could not be taxed separately under section7-A of the Act. 4. Our examination of the relevant provisions of the Act has to begin with section 2(p), (q), (r) which defines "taxable turnover", " total turnover"and" turnover", respectively to mean (1) the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed; (2) the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State, whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax; (3) the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold or delivered or supplied or otherwise disposed of in any of the ways of transfer of the property in goods other than by way of a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge by one person to another in the course of business for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration as in section2(n) of the Act other than such sales, which are expressly excluded, respectively. Section 3(1) of the Act is the main charging section. It provides : "3. Levy of taxes on sales or purchases of goods. - (1) Every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year is not less than one lakh of rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whatever be his turnover for the year, shall pay a tax for each year at the rate of five per cent. of his taxable turnover." * (Proviso not reproduced.) This provision has remained almost the same with amendments from time to time with respect to the total turnover for a year and the rate of tax. At the relevant time of assessment with which we are concerned, the limit of the turnover was Rs. 50, 000 and that tax rate was 4 per cent. per annum. At the relevant time of assessment with which we are concerned, the limit of the turnover was Rs. 50, 000 and that tax rate was 4 per cent. per annum. Section 5 provides for tax on goods purchased by dealers registered under the Central Act 74 of 1956, section 6 provides for tax in addition to tax under the Central Act 74 of 1956 or any other law. Section 7 provides for the compounded rates in these words, "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 3, every dealer other than a casual trader or an agent of a non-resident dealer whose total turnover is not less than one lakh of rupees but not more than two lakhs of rupees, may at his option instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section, pay tax at the following rates, namely : Rate of tax (i) Where the total turnover is not less Two thousand five than one lakh of rupees, but is less hundred and eighty than one lakh ten thousand rupees. rupees per annum. (ii) Where the total turnover is not less Two thousand eight than one lakh ten thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh twenty rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (iii) Where the total turnover is not less Three thousand one than one lakh twenty thousand rupees hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh thirty rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (iv) Where the total turnover is not less Three thousand four than one lakh thirty thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh forty rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (v) Where the total turnover is not less Three thousand seven than one lakh forty thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh fifty rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (vi) Where the total turnover is not less Four thousand and than one lakh fifty thousand rupees, eighty rupees per but is less than one lakh sixty annum. thousand rupees. (vii) Where the total turnover is not less Four thousand three than one lakh sixty thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh seventy rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (viii) Where the total turnover is not less Four thousand six than one lakh seventy thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh eighty rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (viii) Where the total turnover is not less Four thousand six than one lakh seventy thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh eighty rupees per annum. thousand rupees.(ix) Where the total turnover is not less Four thousand nine than one lakh eighty thousand rupees, hundred and eighty but is less than one lakh ninety rupees per annum. thousand rupees. (v) Where the total turnover is not less Five thousand two one lakh ninety thousand rupees, but hundred and eighty is not more than two lakhs of rupees. rupees per annum." * Before the consequential amendment mentioned in section 7, the total turnover to enable the compounding was Rs. 50, 000 but not more than Rs. 1, 00, 000. Section 7-A is the provision for levy of purchase tax. rupees per annum." * Before the consequential amendment mentioned in section 7, the total turnover to enable the compounding was Rs. 50, 000 but not more than Rs. 1, 00, 000. Section 7-A is the provision for levy of purchase tax. It states : "(1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be [not being a circumstance in which goods liable to tax under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4, were purchased at a point other than the taxable point specified in the First or the Second Schedule] and either, - (a) consumes (or uses) such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or (c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover relating to the purchase aforesaid at the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5 as the case may be, whatever be the quantum of such turnover in a year : Provided that a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) purchasing goods [the sale of which is liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3] shall not be liable to pay tax under this sub-section, if his total turnover for a year is less than (one lakh of rupees).(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the provisions of section 7 shall apply to a dealer referred to in sub-section (1) who purchases goods [the sale of which is liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3] and whose total turnover for a year is not less than one lakh of rupees but not more than two lakhs of rupees and such a dealer may, at his option, instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), pay tax at the rates mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 7. (3) Every dealer liable to pay purchase tax under sub-section (1), shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a registered dealer." * 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has contended that the Appellate Tribunal has not approached the case in accordance with law as it failed to notice that the tax on the total turnover leviable in accordance with section3 of the Act, was levied at a compounded rate as envisaged under section 7 thereof and the tax under section 7-A thereof was leviable in the circumstances that ornaments purchased by the assessee were either consumed by him in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise disposed of in any manner other than by was of sale in the State or despatched to a place outside the State but not as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Manakchand 1984 (56) STC 237 in which it has been observed by Padmanabhan, J., who has written the leading judgment of the Bench along with other two honourable Judges, who have made their separate observations, thus : "In fine, I hold that the 'total turnover' occurring in the proviso to section7-A (1) of the Act has the same meaning as the 'total turnover' as defined in section2(q) of the Act. All the turnovers of a dealer whether it is under section 3(1) or 4 or 5 or 7-A, will have to be clubbed together for finding out the 'total turnover' of a dealer under the Act. If such 'total turnover' exceeds Rs. 50, 000 he is liable to pay tax either under section 3(1) or at his option under section 7(1). In addition, he will have to pay tax at the rate specified under section 4 or 5 or 7-A, if the goods fall either under section 4 or 5 or 7-A." * The said observation according to the learned counsel clearly means that any determination of tax on the total turnover as compounded under section7(1) of the Act may be deemed to be for the purposes of section3(1) of the Act and thereafter such income upon which tax under section 7-A will be payable would be separately assessed. This rule has been applied by the assessing authority and the assessee accordingly asked to pay the compounded amount of tax on the total turnover under section7 as well as separately under section7-A of the Act. 6. The contention before the Full Bench was whether the sales turnover assessable either under section 3(1) in a regular assessment or under section 7(1) under compounded rates on the one hand, and the purchase turnover assessable under section 7-A (1) on the other were distinct and separate subjects of charge and hence the turnover under both the heads cannot under any circumstance be clubbed just for the sake of arriving at the target of Rs. 50, 000 and charges the tax either under section3(1) or section7(1) of the Act. The question before the Full Bench therefore had just fallen short of the issue in this case, that having once taxed on the total turnover under section7(1) of the Act, whether in addition any levy of purchase tax under section 7-A (1) will be permissible or not. In other words, whether this will amount to double taxation or not. The judgment of the Full Bench however has made our task easier inasmuch as many variations and deviations in the arguments would have consumed lot of our time and pages of this judgment. The Full Bench had concluded that total turnover is liable to tax or not; the taxable turnover is the turnover on which the dealer is liable to pay tax and is to be determined after making such deductions from the total turnover as may be prescribed; and turnover is that aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold. Since the turnover includes the amount for which the goods are bought or sold, it looks as if the amount for which all goods are purchased and the amount for which the same goods are sold, will have to be added together to arrive at the turnover in such cases. The Full Bench has said, "........ However rule 5, which is extracted below, provides that for certain goods mentioned in rule 5(2) the amount for which the goods are purchased by the dealer and for all other goods the amount for which the goods are sold by the dealer, only will have to be taken into account for arriving at the 'turnover' in such goods. However rule 5, which is extracted below, provides that for certain goods mentioned in rule 5(2) the amount for which the goods are purchased by the dealer and for all other goods the amount for which the goods are sold by the dealer, only will have to be taken into account for arriving at the 'turnover' in such goods. Further it is seen that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce other than tea are to be excluded from the turnover provided they are grown within the State by himself or on any land in which he has in interest whether as owner, usufructuary, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise." The Full Bench has also concluded, "............. Section 7 is an optional provision and if an assessee considers that it will be beneficial to him to be assessed under section 7 he could as well opt to be assessed under section3(1) of the Act." and also observed that" section 7-A is an independent charging section" . The approach taken by the Full Bench, however, can be understood with reference to the discussion in the judgment Padmanabhan, J., has observed : "Section 7-A no doubt, as found by the Supreme Court, is an independent charging section. It lives a tax on every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from as a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under the Act in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 3, 4 or 5 and provided any of the conditions referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) are satisfied. In other words, section 7-A (1) enjoins a dealer to pay tax in certain circumstances on the turnover relating to such purchases. The rate of tax is the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be. Section 7-A further provides that the tax payable in such circumstances shall be on the turnover relating to the purchases whatever may be the quantum of such turnover in a year. The rate of tax is the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be. Section 7-A further provides that the tax payable in such circumstances shall be on the turnover relating to the purchases whatever may be the quantum of such turnover in a year. The proviso to section 7-A states that a dealer who purchases goods in the circumstances mentioned in the enacting section shall not be liable to pay tax under section7-A (1) of the Act with the proviso as a whole, the inference that one gets is that the word 'total turnover' used in the proviso has been used in the same sense in which it has been defined in section2(q) of the Act. Such an interpretation, if placed on the expression 'total turnover' found in the proviso, would be in harmony with the scheme of the Act and would not in any way be repugnant to the enacting part of section 7-A (1). We have already seen that section 2(q) defines the 'total turnover' as the aggregate turnover in all the goods of a dealer as all places of business in the State, whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. The definition of 'total turnover' does not give any room for splitting up the 'total turnover' into different total turnovers depending upon the fact whether it is a turnover relating to sales or relating to purchase. Ordinarily, the 'total turnover' referred to in section 2(q), unless limited by express or necessary implication, must take in the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer which must necessarily include not only the sales turnover as well as purchase turnover under section 7-A or 4. The word 'turnover' has been defined as the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold, or supplied or distributed, by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his own account or on account to others whether for case or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. The definition, as already noticed, would include the amounts for which goods are bought or sold. It must be noted that the language used is 'sold or bought' and not 'sold and bought'. The definition, as already noticed, would include the amounts for which goods are bought or sold. It must be noted that the language used is 'sold or bought' and not 'sold and bought'. Therefore, the question whether in the case of identical goods when a dealer purchases them and sells them, his total turnover should be taken to include the purchase turnover of goods and sales turnover of the very same goods, does not arise. It is only either the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or the aggregate amount for which goods are sold will be taken into consideration for arriving at the turnover of a particular goods. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the manner of arriving at the turnover of goods. According to rule 5(2) in cases of goods mentioned in that rule, it is only the aggregate for which goods are bought should be taken into consideration for arriving at the turnover and in all other cases [according to rule 5(1)] it is the aggregate amount for which goods are sold should be taken into consideration, for arriving at the turnover. A combined reading of section 2(r), 2(q) and rule 5 would make it clear that for arriving at the turnover of goods as defined in section 2(r) either the sales turnover of goods or the purchase turnover of goods will have to be taken into consideration and that both the sale turnover as well as the purchase turnover will have to be clubbed together for arriving at the total turnover of a dealer as defined in section 2(q) when the dealer deals in goods falling rule 5(1) as well as in rule 5(2)." * 7. The majority judgment (Balasubrahmanyan, J., contra) delivered by Padmanabhan, J., thus is an authority to understand the meaning of the word "total turnover" for the purposes of the charging provisions as in section 3, 4, 5 and 7-A of the Act as well as for the purpose of compounding as provided under section7 of the Act and in spite of the dissent by Balasubrahmanyan, J., it has come to hold the field the field that for the purpose of determining as to what the word "total turnover" in any of these provisions would mean is the total whether it is under section 3(1) or 4 or 5 or 7-A and not a step for charging under section 3(1) or 4 or 5 or 7-A. The observations in the judgment, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/State cannot mean that while compounding or charging on the total turnover there shall be two taxes on the total turnover that is to say one under section3 and another under section4 or 5 or 7-A of the Act. This also cannot be an authority that in a case under which there is taxable turnover under section 3 or 4 or 5 as well as under section 7-A, then the tax compounded would be only for the purpose of section 3(1) and not for the purpose of section 7-A. Given on state, we may have goods reasons to agree with the view of the minority judgment by Balasubrhamanyan, J., but we feel it is unnecessary in the instant case to express any dissent with the Full Bench. 8. Section 7(1) existed before the introduction of section 7-A in the Act by an amendment in the year 1970. The would used in the section are extracted above. 8. Section 7(1) existed before the introduction of section 7-A in the Act by an amendment in the year 1970. The would used in the section are extracted above. The Legislature evidently could not mention section 7-A therein, but while enacting section 7-A, the Legislature could take notice of the provision of section7 of the Act and accordingly in Sub-section (2) of section 7-A, it is stated : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the provisions of section 7 shall apply to a dealer referred to in sub-section (1) who purchases goods the sale of which is liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3 and whose total turnover for a year is not less than .........." * This has left doubt to the right of the dealer to seek compounding of the tax payable under section 7-A (1) and accordingly paying as provided under section7 of the Act. We have already seen that levy of tax on sales or purchase of goods with varying rates is provided for under various sectionof the Act. Compounding is permissible notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section3 as well as for the tax under section7-A of the Act, which clearly out the argument that a compounded tax on the total turnover shall be only for the purpose of section 3(1) of the Act and not for the purpose of section7-A (1) of the Act. A trader/dealer thus opting for compounding on the total turnover in the absence of any material to the contrary, would be deemed to have opted for compounding of the tax payable under section3(1) of the Act as well as section7-A (1) of the Act. Once compounded under section 7(1) and realised tax so paid be deemed to cover the tax section3 as well as under section7-A (1) of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has thus read something more than what has actually been decided by the Full Bench. The would "if such total turnover exceeds Rs. Once compounded under section 7(1) and realised tax so paid be deemed to cover the tax section3 as well as under section7-A (1) of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has thus read something more than what has actually been decided by the Full Bench. The would "if such total turnover exceeds Rs. 50, 000 he is liable to pay tax either under section 3(1) or on his option under section 7(1) and in addition he will have to pay tax at the rate as specified under section 4 or 5 or section 7-A if the goods fall under section 4 or 5 or under section 7-A" in the judgment/order of Padmanabhan, J., will have to be read along with sub-section (2) of section 7-A. Read as above, it shall lead to the only conclusion that having once realised tax under section7(1) of the Act on the total turnover, if there is an attempt to further tax the assessee under section7-A (1) of the Act, that may amount to double taxation. 10. We thus conclude in the light of the discussion above that the Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error in making the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs.