Judgment :- Paripoornan, J. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In this revision, the controversy is regarding the surcharge assessment of the respondent/ assessee. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. For the year 1978-79, the assessing authority finally determined the total turnover of the assessee at Rs. 9,63,785/- for the purpose of the assessment under the K.G.S. T. Act. But, for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, the assessing authority included the sales-tax collections also in the turnover fixed for the assessment under the K.G.S.T. Act. Thus, the total turnover for the purpose of surcharge assessment exceeded Rs. 10,00,000/-. Under S.3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, surcharge was levied at 8%. The assessee pleaded that the sales-tax collected should not In? included in the turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act. This plea was negatived by the assessing authority and by the appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, in second appeal, the Sales tax appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in an and Swamp Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales tax [(1980) 46 S.T.C. 477], held that the sales tax collected by the assessee from his customers did not form part of the turnover for the purpose of surcharge assessment and on this basis the turnover to be assessed will be below Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessing authority was directed to amend the surcharge assessment adopting the appropriate rate of surcharge, for the total assessable amount which was fixed at less than Rs. 10 lakhs excluding the sales tax collected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Sales tax appellate Tribunal dated 8-5-1984, the Revenue has come up in revision. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. N.N. Divakaran Pillai, Special Government Pleader (Taxes). The assessee was not represented. This Court requested Mr. K.C. Balagangadhara, Advocate to assist the court. Accordingly, counsel prepared the brief and argued the matter rather elaborately. S3 is the charging provision of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. S.3 is in the following terms: "3. N.N. Divakaran Pillai, Special Government Pleader (Taxes). The assessee was not represented. This Court requested Mr. K.C. Balagangadhara, Advocate to assist the court. Accordingly, counsel prepared the brief and argued the matter rather elaborately. S3 is the charging provision of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. S.3 is in the following terms: "3. Levy of surcharge on sales and purchase taxes.-(1) The tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, shall, in the case of a dealer whose turnover- (a) is not less than one lakh rupees but does not exceed ten lakhs rupees in a year, be increased by a surcharge at the rate of five per centum, and (b) exceeds ten lakhs rupees in a year be increased by a surcharge at the rate of eight per centum, of the tax payable for that year, and the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, shall apply in relation to the said surcharge as they apply in relation to the tax payable under the said Act: (2) Not with standing any thing contained in sub-section (l) of S.22 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 no dealer referred to in sub-section (1) shall be entitled to collect the surcharge payable under the said sub-section". 3. Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act has not defined the word "turnover". But, in the Kerala General Sales tax Act, the words "turnover", "total turnover" and "taxable turnover" are defined (Sections 2 (xxvii),2(xxvi) and 2 (xxv)). The "turnover" means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold. "Total turnover" means the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State and "taxable turnover" means 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. Under Rule 9(1) of the K.G.S.T. Rules, all amounts of sales-tax collected by the dealer, if shown separately in the bills, shall be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer. S.22 of the K.G.S.T. Act provides for collection of tax payable by a registered dealer on the sale of any goods from the person to whom he sells the goods. The net result of the above provisions is to the following effect. S.22 of the K.G.S.T. Act provides for collection of tax payable by a registered dealer on the sale of any goods from the person to whom he sells the goods. The net result of the above provisions is to the following effect. A registered dealer is permitted to pass on the tax payable by him on the sale of any goods. He can collect the tax due on the sale of any goods. But, it is not mandatory. "Turnover" is the aggregate amount for which the goods are sold. The whole amount paid to the seller by the purchaser is the consideration for the sale and is included in the "turnover". But, in calculating the "taxable turnover", Rule 9(1) of the K.G.S. T. Rules permits exclusion of sales-tax collected subject to certain conditions. That is a reason for excluding sales-tax collected (or passed on) from the purview of the taxable turnover in making the assessment under the K.G.S.T. Act. The question is, whether the same consideration will apply in making an assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. 4. We are of the view that in the absence of provisions similar to section 2 (xxv) and rule 9(1) of the K.G.S. T. Act and the Rules in the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, the entire consideration received for the sale by a dealer should be included in the turnover. So far as the purchaser is concerned, he pays for the goods what the seller demands, i.e., price even though it may include tax. The price of the goods plus tax and other amounts collected form the consideration for the sale. The entire amount received by way of consideration for the sale inclusive of sales tax is available for the seller for being "turned over". That is the turnover for the purpose of levy of surcharge under S.3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. The tax payable is on the "turnover" unlike S.5 of the K.G.S.T. Act where the tax is payable on the "taxable turnover". The language of S.3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 makes a difference. Tax is payable on the turnover and not on the turnover less tax collected, as in the case of the assessment under the K.G.S. T. Act. The language of S.3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 makes a difference. Tax is payable on the turnover and not on the turnover less tax collected, as in the case of the assessment under the K.G.S. T. Act. In this perspective, the appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the sales tax collected by the assessee from his customers did not form part of the turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. 5. The Sales tax appellate Tribunal in coming to the conclusion, that the sales tax collected by the assessee from his customers did not form part of the turnover for the purpose of Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in an and Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case (46 S.T.C. 477). That is a decision by a Bench of two Judges. There are earlier decisions on the subject by Constitution Bench of five Judges --See- George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1961) 12 S.T.C. 476]; and The State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons [(1965 KLT 1219 = (1966) 18 S.T.C. 1]. The above decisions have been referred to in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court (Three Member bench) - Joint Commercial Tax Office r v. Spencer & Co. [(1975) 36 S.T.C. 188]. There is a later decision of a bench, consisting of two judges, in Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer [(1987) 65 S.T.C. 48], wherein the earlier decisions in George Oakes Pvt.Ltd case (12 STC 476) and an and Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case (46 STC 477) have been adverted to. Under the K G.S.T. Act, there is no statutory obligation or duty to collect the sales-tax payable by the dealer from his customers. The dealer is enabled to pass on the tax to the customer. The amount so collected forms part of the purchase price. It is because of the specific provision in S.5 of the Act read with Rule 9(1) of the K.G.S.T. Rules, the tax so collected is excluded from the taxable turnover. But, in the case of statutes which require or cast a duty on the seller of goods to collect from the purchaser a tax, the tax is on the purchaser. It is because of the specific provision in S.5 of the Act read with Rule 9(1) of the K.G.S.T. Rules, the tax so collected is excluded from the taxable turnover. But, in the case of statutes which require or cast a duty on the seller of goods to collect from the purchaser a tax, the tax is on the purchaser. and not on the seller and the seller is required to collect the tax which has to be paid over to the Government. He is only a collector of tax for the 'Government, and the amount collected by him as tax cannot therefore form part of his turnover. In such cases, the tax collected will not form part of the turnover of the seller/ dealer. Such was the position in 36 S.T.C. 188 and also in 46 S.T.C. 477. In those cases, the tax is collected under a statutory obligation. The tax is collected because of compulsion of the statute and will not form part of the turnover of the seller/ dealer. The position under the K.G.S. T. Act is entirely different. The tax is recoverable from the purchasers. There is no statutory v obligation on the seller to recover the tax from the purchasers. The above distinction has been well brought out in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Central Wines v. Special commercial Tax Officer (65 S.T.C. 48 at p. 56). It is ignoring the above distinction, the appellate Tribunal has placed blind reliance on the decision in an and Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case (46 S.T.C. 477) and held that the sales-tax collected by the assessee from his customers did not form part of his turnover. The said decision has been explained in the later decision, referred to herein above - 65 S.T.C. 48. 6. In view of the Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court (12 STC 476;18 STC1) and the subsequent decisions explaining the above decisions - 36 STC188 and 65 STC 48 - we have no hesitation to hold that the sales-tax collected by the assessee will form part of his turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. The decision of the Sales tax appellate Tribunal to the contrary is patently erroneous in law. The decision of the Sales tax appellate Tribunal to the contrary is patently erroneous in law. Wherever the said decision and direct the assessing authority to amend the assessment in the light of the reasoning and conclusion contained herein. 7. The Tax Revision Case is allowed. We express our appreciation of the services rendered by Advocate Mr. K.C. Balagangadhara as amicus curiae and place on record our appreciation of the useful services rendered by counsel. Dated this the 3rd day of June, 1991.