JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J. :---By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the assessee, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of provisions of sections 37 and 46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the forfeiture of tax collected by the applicants during the unregistered period?" 2. The assessee, M/s. Niranjan Mills Ltd., was carrying on business in Bombay. Initially, it had no fixed place of business in Bombay. It was carrying on its business activities in Bombay from its Delhi Office. In respect of its business in Bombay, it was, therefore, registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("Act") as a "non-resident dealer" with effect from 20th April, 1966. Subsequently, it opened a place of business in Bombay. Soon thereafter, it applied for cancellation of the registration certificate granted to it as a non-resident dealer and for grant of fresh registration certificate as dealer in the State. On the above application of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer cancelled the registration certificate earlier granted to the assessee as a non-resident dealer and issued a fresh certificate in respect of his place of business situated in Bombay with effect from 1st July, 1975. 3. It appears that the assessee had also opened another place of business at Madhavnagar in Sangli District in the State of Maharashtra. No separate application for registration was however made by the assessee to the registering authority having jurisdiction over Sangli in respect of the place of business at Sangli. The Sales Tax Officer, Sangli, having learnt about the said place of business, visited the same on 18th November, 1977. On such visit, he noticed that though the assessee was required under the rules to make an application to him for registration in respect of its above place of business, he had not done so. He, therefore, took possession of five books of account found at the above place of business for scrutiny. On perusal of the same, it appeared that the assessee had effected substantial turnover of sales and collected taxes on such sales separately in addition to the price of the goods. He, therefore, took possession of five books of account found at the above place of business for scrutiny. On perusal of the same, it appeared that the assessee had effected substantial turnover of sales and collected taxes on such sales separately in addition to the price of the goods. The figures of the turnover of sales of the assessee of the above place of business and tax collected thereon during the period from 1st April, 1975 to 17th May, 1977 are as below : Period Turnover of Tax Sales Collected 1-4-75 to 31-3-76 36,29,339/- 52,586/- 1-4-76 to 31-3-77 6,83,681/- 13,774/- 1-4-77 to 17-5-77 3,03,350/- 6,077/- During the pendency of proceedings at Sangli, the assessee applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for transfer of the proceedings in respect of its business at Sangli to the Sales Tax Officer, "G" Ward, Bombay, in whose jurisdiction its Bombay office was situated. On the above application of the assessee, the Commissioner transferred the proceedings to the Sales Tax Officer (XI). Enforcement Branch, Bombay, who initiated assessment proceedings for assessing the turnover of the assessee at Sangli in respect of the above periods by issue of notice in Form 27. Along with the above notice, another notice was served asking it to show cause as to why it should not be assessed in respect of the above business at Sangli under section 33(6) of the Act. It was also called upon to show cause as to why penalty under section 36(2) of the Act should not be imposed and why the collection of tax made by him at its place of business at Sangli, in the period during which it was not separately registered in respect of that business, should not be forfeited. In reply to the above notices, the assessee informed the Sales Tax Officer that there was no dispute about the determination of the turnover of sales. In regard to the proposed action for forfeiture of tax, the contention of the assessee was that it was not an unregistered dealer and, as such, the tax collected by it cannot be forfeited. It was stated that the assessee was a registered dealer under the Act. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee in regard to forfeiture. He, therefore, assessed the tax due from the assessee and also forfeited the amount collected by it by way of tax. It was stated that the assessee was a registered dealer under the Act. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee in regard to forfeiture. He, therefore, assessed the tax due from the assessee and also forfeited the amount collected by it by way of tax. A penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was also levied under section 36(2)(c) for the period 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976. The amount of tax assessed, penalty levied and amounts forfeited in the three assessment periods are as under : HEADING PERIOD 1-4-75 to 1-4-76 to 1-4-77 to 31-3-76 31-3-77 17-5-77 Rs. Rs. Rs. Sales Tax payable 52,586/- 13,774/- 6,077/- Additional Tax under section 15-A-1. 3,155/- 826/- 365/- TOTAL 55,741/- 14,600/- 6,442/- 36(2)(a) Penalty 2,000/- - - Forfeiture 52,586/- 13,774/- 6,077/- 1,10,327/- 28,374/- 12,519/- Advance payment 53,652/- NIL NIL Balance Due 56,675/- 28,374/- 12,519/- 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The orders were challenged on the following grounds: i) It was already registered as a dealer under the Act having its place of business in Bombay. Hence, the Sales Tax Officer erred in treating it as an unregistered dealer in respect of its turnover at Sangli. ii) The assessing officer erred in forfeiting the amount of tax collected by it. iii) The Sales Tax Officer erred in levying penalty under section 36(2)(a). iv) The Sales Tax Officer erred in levying additional tax under section 15-A-I as no additional tax was leviable on the sales of cotton yarn. 5. The Assistant Commissioner did not find any merit in any of the above submissions of the assessee. He upheld the action of the Sales Tax Officer treating the assessee as an unregistered dealer in respect of its Sangli branch and forfeiting the collection of tax made by it. He also upheld the levy of additional tax and penalty under section 36(2)(a). While deciding the appeals, the Assistant Commissioner also initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under section 37 of the Act and issued a notice and called upon the assessee to show cause as to why for unauthorised collection of tax, penalty should not be imposed under section 37 of the Act and, after hearing the assessee, imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- in three periods under section 37 of the Act. 6. 2,000/-. Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- in three periods under section 37 of the Act. 6. Against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went in further appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("Tribunal"). Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the --- i) imposition of penalty under section 37; ii) levy of Additional Tax under section 15-A-I of the Act; iii) imposition of penalty under section 36(2)(a) at Rs. 2,000/-; and iv) forfeiture of the amount collected by the assessee. The assessee did not press its challenge to levy of penalty under section 37 of the Act. So far as the challenge to levy of additional tax is concerned, the Tribunal decided the same in favour of the assessee and held that no additional tax was leviable. The Tribunal, however, did not find any merit in the challenge of the assessee to the levy of penalty under section 36(2)(a) and rejected the same. The Tribunal also rejected the challenge of the assessee to the forfeiture of the amount collected by it. The assessee applied for reference of two questions of law to this Court, one arising out of its finding in regard to penalty under section 36(2)(a), and the other arising out of its order in so far as it pertained to forfeiture of tax. The Tribunal declined to refer the first question. It was, however, of the opinion that the second question in regard to forfeiture was a question of law and hence referred the same to this Court. We have already set out the said question in paragraph above. 7. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned Counsel for the assessee, submits that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in upholding the order of forfeiture of the amount of tax collected by the assessee on the face of the admitted factual position that the whole of the said amount had already been paid by the assessee to the sales tax department by way of tax and nothing was left with the assessee which could be forfeited. The alternate contention of Mr. The alternate contention of Mr. Joshi is that the assessee in the instant case being a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 since 20th May, 1966, first having been registered as a non-resident dealer and later with effect from 1st July, 1975 as a dealer having a place of business in the State situated at Bombay, has to be treated as a registered dealer for all purposes under the Act. It is contended that the requirement of separate registrations for places of business situated within the jurisdiction of different registering authorities is merely a procedural requirement and for non-compliance of the same, a dealer, who is already a "registered dealer" under the Act, cannot be regarded as an unregistered dealer in respect of any of its establishment in the State whether situated within the jurisdiction of the same registering authority or another registering authority. These submissions are vehemently opposed by Mr. Rajgopalan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. According to him, all collections made by an unregistered dealer by way of Sales Tax are liable to be forfeited irrespective of the assessment of such dealer in respect of the transactions of sales in question and levy of tax equal to or in excess of the amount collected by him and payment of the entire amount of tax so collected by him by the revenue. He also contends that despite registration of the dealer under the Act, he may be regarded as an unregistered dealer in respect of any place of business situated within the jurisdiction of a registering authority other than the one who had registered him, if he is not separately registered with such other authority in respect of that place of business, and the tax collected by him in respect of sales effected at such place of business may be forfeited under section 37 of the Act. 8. To appreciate the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to peruse some of the provisions of the Act having a bearing on the determination of the controversy. Section 37 of the Act, which provides for forfeiture of tax, at the material time reads as follows : "37. 8. To appreciate the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to peruse some of the provisions of the Act having a bearing on the determination of the controversy. Section 37 of the Act, which provides for forfeiture of tax, at the material time reads as follows : "37. Imposition of penalty for contravening certain provisions --- (1) If any person--- (a)(i) not being a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act, collects any sum by way of tax, or (ii) being a registered dealer, collects any amount by way of tax in excess of the tax payable by him, or (ii-a) being a registered dealer, collects any amount by way of additional tax in contravention of the provision of sub-section (2) of section 15-A-I, or (iii) otherwise collects tax in contravention of the provisions of section 46, or (b) being a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act, or being a dealer who was required to do so by the Commissioner by a notice served on him fails in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 48 to keep a true account of the value of the goods purchased or sold by him, or fails when directed so to do under that section to keep any accounts or record in accordance with the direction,- he shall be liable to pay, in addition to any tax for which he may be liable, a penalty of an amount as follows :--- (i) Where there has been a contravention referred to in Clause (a)(i) or (iii), a penalty of an amount not exceeding two thousand rupees or double the sum collected by way of tax - whichever is less. (ii) Where there has been a contravention referred to in Clause (a)(i) or (ii-a) or (b), a penalty of an amount not exceeding two thousand rupees, and in addition, any sum collected by the person by way of tax in contravention of sub-section (2) of section 15-A-I or section 46 shall be forfeited to the State Government. When any order of forfeiture is made, the Commissioner shall publish or cause to be published a notice thereof for the information of the persons concerned giving such details and in such manner as may be prescribed. When any order of forfeiture is made, the Commissioner shall publish or cause to be published a notice thereof for the information of the persons concerned giving such details and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) If the Commissioner in the course of any proceeding under this Act or otherwise, has reason to believe that any person has become liable to a penalty or forfeiture or both penalty and forfeiture of any sum under sub-section (1), he shall serve on such person a notice in the prescribed form requiring him on a date and at a place specified in the notice to attend and show cause why a penalty or forfeiture or both penalty and forfeiture of any sum as provided in sub-section (1) should not be imposed on him. (3) The Commissioner shall thereupon hold an inquiry and shall make such order as he thinks fit. (4) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section." (Emphasis supplied) Section 46 of the Act prohibits collection of tax in certain cases. It reads : "46. Prohibition against collection of tax in certain cases--- (1) No person shall collect any sum by way of tax in respect of sales of any goods on which by virtue of section 5 no tax is payable. (2) No person, who is not a Registered dealer and liable to pay tax in respect of any sale or purchase, shall collect on the sale of any goods any sum by way of tax from any other person and no Registered dealer shall collect any amount by way of tax in excess of the amount of tax payable by him under the provisions of this Act : Provided that, this sub-section shall not apply where a person is required to collect such amount of the tax separately in order to comply with the conditions and restrictions imposed on him under the provisions of any law for the time being in force. (3) ....." It is also necessary to refer to sub-section (6) of section 38 of the Act, which was inserted by Maharashtra Act 40 of 1969 with retrospective effect. (3) ....." It is also necessary to refer to sub-section (6) of section 38 of the Act, which was inserted by Maharashtra Act 40 of 1969 with retrospective effect. It reads : "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force, where any sum collected by a person by way of tax in contravention of section 46, is forfeited to the State Government under section 37 and is recovered from him, such payment or recovery shall discharge him of the liability to refund the sum to the person from whom it was so collected. A refund of such sum or any part thereof can be claimed from Government by the person from whom it was realised by way of tax, provided that an application for such claim is made by him in writing in the prescribed form to the Commissioner, within one year from the date of the order of forfeiture. On receipt of any such application, the Commissioner shall hold such inquiry as he deems fit, and if the Commissioner is satisfied that the claim is valid and admissible and that the amount so claimed as refund was actually paid in Government treasury or recovered, and no draw-back, setoff, refund or remission in respect of that amount was granted, he shall refund the sum or any part thereof, which is found due to the person concerned." (Emphasis supplied) Contravention of the provisions of section 46, without reasonable excuse, is also an offence under section 63(1)(h) of the Act, which is punishable with imprisonment and fine. 9. Section 37(1) of the Act, which was also applicable to Gujarat State, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in (Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Ltd.)1, (1977)40 S.T.C. 497 . After elaborate discussion, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., (at pg. 514): "Section 37(1) does say that "any sum collected by the person by way of tax ... Shall be forfeited...". Literally read, the whole sum goes to the State. Let us suppose the dealer has returned the whole or part of the collections to the customers. Should the whole amount, regardless of such repayment, be forfeited? We think not." It was further observed : "Section 37(1) uses the expressions, in relation to forfeiture, "any sum collected by the person...shall be forfeited". What does "collected" mean here? Let us suppose the dealer has returned the whole or part of the collections to the customers. Should the whole amount, regardless of such repayment, be forfeited? We think not." It was further observed : "Section 37(1) uses the expressions, in relation to forfeiture, "any sum collected by the person...shall be forfeited". What does "collected" mean here? Words cannot be construed effectively without reference to their context. The setting colours the sense of the word. The spirit of the provisions lends force to the construction that "collected" means "collected and kept as his" by the trader. If the dealer merely gathered the sum by way of tax and kept it in suspense account because of dispute about taxability or was ready to return it if eventually it was not taxable, it was not collected. "Collected", in an Australian Customs Tariff Act, was held by Griffith, C.J., not "to include money deposited under an agreement that if it was not legally payable it will be returned ..." It was held : "....We therefore semanticise "Collected" not to cover amounts gathered tentatively to be given back if found non-exigible from the dealer." The Court also examined the true import of the expression "shall be forfeited" appearing in section 37(1) of the Act and construed the same to mean "shall be liable to be forfeited". The following discussion in the judgment delivered by Krishna Iyer, J., in Ajit Mills case (supra) is very illuminating : "The expression "forfeiture" may now be examined. For one thing, there is authority to hold that "shall be forfeited" means "liable to be forfeited", depending on the setting and the sense of the statute. Lord Porter, in Attorney-General v. Persons, observed, in the context of language suggestive of automatic forfeiture, negativing such inference : The strength of the opposite opinion rests upon the fact that forfeiture in section 1(1) must, on the construction which I have adopted, mean liable to forfeiture whereas, as my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton points out in his opinion, which I have had an opportunity of reading, it bears the meaning of forfeited and not liable to forfeiture in sub-section (2)(iv). This is true, but the collection is different. Admittedly the word forfeited may bear the meaning liable to forfeiture at the will of the person to whom the right of forfeiture. This is true, but the collection is different. Admittedly the word forfeited may bear the meaning liable to forfeiture at the will of the person to whom the right of forfeiture. Lord Cohen, in the same judgment, considered it appropriate to read "forfeiture" as meaning "liable to be forfeited". Although there was a conflict of opinion on this point, it is sufficient to state that such a construction is tenable. Moreover, section 37 itself contains a clear clue indicative of the sense in which "shall be forfeited" has been used. Section 37(2) directs the Commissioner to issue notice to the assessee to show cause why a penalty, with or without forfeiture, should not be imposed on him. Such a notice, with specific reference to forfeiture, points to an option in the Commissioner to forfeit or not to forfeit or partly to forfeit. This is made plainer in section 37(3), which reads :The Commissioner shall, thereupon, hold an enquiry and shall make such order as he thinks fit. This order embraces penalty and forfeiture. Therefore, the Commissioner is vested with a discretion to forfeit the whole or any lesser sum or none at all. We limit the sense of "shall be forfeited" as meaning shall be liable to be forfeited." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the above discussion. It was observed (at pg. 515) : "This signification of "forfeiture" as liability to forfeiture saves the equity of the statute. The Commissioner must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that amounts illegally collected have been returned to the purchasers to whom they belong before passing the final order. We are clear in our minds that the forfeiture should operate only to the extent, and not in excess of the total collections less what has been returned to the purchasers...." (Emphasis supplied) It was further observed (at pg. 515) : "...We may go a step further to hold that it is fair and reasonable for the Commissioner to consider any undertaking given by the dealer that he will return the amounts collected from purchasers to them...." 10. The meaning of the word "collected" used in section 37(1) of the Act also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Karandikar Sales Tax Officer)2, (1979)44 S.T.C. 102 . The meaning of the word "collected" used in section 37(1) of the Act also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Karandikar Sales Tax Officer)2, (1979)44 S.T.C. 102 . This Court referred to sub-section (6) of section 38 of the Act which was inserted with retrospective effect by Maharashtra Act 40 of 1969 and observed that the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as in force in the State of Gujarat, did not contain any provision like sub-section (6) of section 38 for refund by the State of amount illegally collected to the purchasers. In that view of the matter, it was held : "The context in which the word "collected" occurs in section 37(1) of the said Act, as in force in this State, is fundamentally different from the context in which it occurs in the section, as in force in the State of Gujarat, by reason of the insertion with retrospective effect of sub-section (6) in section 38. In the wider context in which the word "collected" occurs in our section 37(1), we do not find it possible to place upon the word "collected" a narrow meaning. The word "collected" in our section 37(1) must, therefore, be construed in its natural and ordinary sense. Here it is the state which has taken over the obligation to refund these amounts to the purchasers, and it is the State which will do so. We, however, make it clear that in a case, where before an order of forfeiture is passed, if a dealer refunds the amount so collected or a part thereof to the purchasers, the amount so refunded by the dealer cannot be ordered to be forfeited. We, however, make it clear that in a case, where before an order of forfeiture is passed, if a dealer refunds the amount so collected or a part thereof to the purchasers, the amount so refunded by the dealer cannot be ordered to be forfeited. That the department has also placed this interpretation upon the word "collected" is seen from the fact that one of the reasons given for forfeiting this amount was that the petitioners had not refunded the amounts to the purchasers." This Court also considered the facts of the above case and observed as under : "The facts thus clearly show that there was never any intention on the part of the petitioners, at the time of effecting these sales, of refunding any amount to the purchasers and, from the nature of things, it is not possible that they could do so to those purchasers whose addresses or whose names and addresses had not been taken down. If it was thus impossible for the petitioners to refund the amounts to these purchasers, justice and equity both require that the petitioners should not be allowed to profit from this by reason of their wrongful act. It is also pertinent to note that, in fact, the petitioners have not refunded any part of these amounts to their purchasers though they had an opportunity to do so. By the assessment order dated 30th June, 1970, the transactions in question effected in the course of the year 1966-67 were held not to be exigible to tax. Though between the date of the order of assessment and the date of the order of forfeiture ten months had elapsed, no effort whatever was made by the petitioners to refund any part of these amounts to their purchasers." 11. On a careful perusal of the above decision of this Court in Trustees, Port of Bombay, (supra), it is clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Mills case on interpretation of section 37(1) of the Act, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, stands modified in view of sub-section (6) of section 38 of the Act, to the extent that the word "collected" used in section 37(1) of Act, shall also cover amounts gathered tentatively if found non-exigible from the dealer. 12. 12. The legal position that emerges from the construction of section 37(1) read with section 38(6) and 46 of the Act in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Mills case and this Court in Trustees, Port of Bombay, case can be summed up thus : i) The power of forfeiture conferred on the Commissioner under section 37(1) of the Act is discretionary in nature. He has an option to forfeit or not to forfeit or partly to forfeit. In other words he is vested with the discretion, to forfeit the whole or any lesser sum or none at all having regard to the circumstances of the case. ii) The expression "shall be forfeited" used in section 37(1) should be construed to mean "shall be liable to be forfeited". iii) The word "collected" in section 37(1) of the Act means "collected and kept" by the trader. iv) Forfeiture would operate only to the extent, and not in excess of the total collections less what have been returned to the purchasers before passing of the order of forfeiture or paid to the Government by way of tax on the transactions in respect of which it had been collected by the dealer by way of tax. v) If the dealer is assessed to tax under the Act in respect of the transactions in question and the amount of tax payable by him is found to be not less than the amount collected by him, question of forfeiture cannot arise because nothing is left with the dealer which can be forfeited. 13. We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the legal propositions set-out above with a view to ascertaining whether the amount collected by the assessee or any part thereof is liable to be forfeited under section 37 read with section 46 of the Act. The factual position in this case is that the assessee collected sums of Rs. 52,586/-, Rs. 13,774/- and Rs. 6,077/- on transactions of sales effected by it during the periods 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976, 1-4-1976, 31-3-1977, 1-4-1977 to 17-5-1977 respectively. The amounts of tax assessed as due from the assessee by the Sales Tax Officer for these three periods were exactly the same as the amounts collected viz., Rs. 52,586/-, Rs. 13,774/- and Rs. 6,077/-. 52,586/-, Rs. 13,774/- and Rs. 6,077/- on transactions of sales effected by it during the periods 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976, 1-4-1976, 31-3-1977, 1-4-1977 to 17-5-1977 respectively. The amounts of tax assessed as due from the assessee by the Sales Tax Officer for these three periods were exactly the same as the amounts collected viz., Rs. 52,586/-, Rs. 13,774/- and Rs. 6,077/-. Thus the sums collected by the assessee on transactions of sale effected by it at Sangli were paid by the assessee to the Sales Tax Officer as tax payable under the Act on those transactions. Nothing was left with the assessee out of the said sums. No part of it was kept by the assessee. It was in fact assessees own case before the Sales Tax Officer that he had collected only such amount of tax as was payable by him under the provisions of the Act, which was found to be correct on assessment. The following chart gives the true picture of the collection of tax by the assessee, tax payable/paid to the Sales Tax Officer and amount, if any, left with the assessee after deducting from the amount collected the amount assessed by the Sales Tax Officer during the three periods : Period Amount Amount Amount collected of tax retained by assessed the assessee as payable Rs. Rs. Rs. 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976 52,586/- 52,586/- Nil 1-4-1976 to 31-3-77 13,774/- 13,774 Nil 1-4-77 to 17-5-77 6,077/- 6,077 Nil It is clear from the above chart that out of the sums collected, nothing was left with the assessee. No part of the collection was in excess of the amount payable by the assessee as tax under the Act on the transactions in question which could have been forfeited. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in upholding the forfeiture of the amounts collected by the assessee without having regard to the fact that the whole of it had been paid by the assessee to the Government by way of tax on the very same transactions on which it had been collected and nothing out of it was kept by him with himself. 14. Before concluding the discussion, we feel it necessary to deal with the alternate submission of Mr. 14. Before concluding the discussion, we feel it necessary to deal with the alternate submission of Mr. Joshi, counsel for the assessee, that the assessee being registered as a dealer under section 22 of the Act, cannot be treated as an "unregistered dealer" in respect of any of its establishments in Maharashtra for application of sections 37 and 46 of the Act. The contention is that the assessee has to be regarded as a registered dealer in the State authorised to collect by way of tax, the amount of tax payable by him under the provisions of the Act. According to him, by collecting tax in the present case, the assessee did not in any way contravene the provisions of section 46 of the Act. 15. On careful consideration of the scheme of the Act in the light of the relevant provisions thereof, we find force in the above submission of Mr. Joshi. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section makes every dealer whose turnover of sales or purchases during any year exceeds the limits specified therein liable to pay tax under the Act on his "turnover of sales" and "turnover of purchases". "Turnover of sales" have been defined in Clause (36) of section 2 to mean the aggregate of the amounts of sale price received by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods made during a given period after making certain deductions specified therein. Similarly. "purchase price" has been defined in Clause (35) to mean the aggregate of amount of purchase price paid by a dealer. The liability to pay tax under the Act is thus determined with reference to the aggregate turnover of sales and turnover of purchases of the dealer "in the State". Once his turnover exceeds the specified limits, he becomes liable to tax on all sales or purchases made by him in the State. This liability does not depend upon registration under the Act. He would be liable to pay the tax even if he fails to apply for registration and get himself registered. He is required to get himself registered because of section 22 of the Act which provides that "no dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax under section 3 or under sub-section (6) of section 19, carry on business as a dealer, unless he possesses a valid certificate of registration as provided by this Act". He is required to get himself registered because of section 22 of the Act which provides that "no dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax under section 3 or under sub-section (6) of section 19, carry on business as a dealer, unless he possesses a valid certificate of registration as provided by this Act". Once he is registered under this section, he becomes a "registered dealer" under the Act. This is clear from Clause (25) of section 2 of the Act which defines "registered dealer" to mean "a dealer registered under section 22". Registration is thus of the dealer, not of his place of business. Consequently once a dealer is registered under section 22 of the Act, he becomes a registered dealer for all purposes of the Act. He cannot be treated as registered dealer only in respect of a particular place of business and unregistered dealer in respect of some other places. The requirement of making separate applications in respect of different places of business within the jurisdiction of different registering authorities is contained in Rule 7(3) of the Rules which provided that : "A dealer having place of business within the jurisdiction of different registering authorities, shall make an application for registration separately to each such authority in respect of his places of business (not being merely a warehouse), within the jurisdiction of that authority." This requirement, in our opinion, is directory. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the dealer liable to penal action but that cannot have the effect of treating him as an unregistered dealer in respect of any place of business in the State. 16. It is clear from the above discussion that a dealer who is registered under section 22 of the Act cannot be treated as unregistered dealer in respect of any place of business situated in the State. He would be a registered dealer authorised to carry on business in the whole of the State in that capacity and entitled to all the privileges of a registered dealer including the right of collecting tax on the sales of taxable goods effected by him as are available to registered dealers. 17. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the assessee was registered as a dealer by the Sales Tax Officer, Bombay with effect from 1-4-1975. 17. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the assessee was registered as a dealer by the Sales Tax Officer, Bombay with effect from 1-4-1975. On and from that date undoubtedly he became a "registered dealer" for all purposes under the Act. He had a right to collect tax on the sales of taxable goods effected by him in the State at the rates specified in the Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not collect any amount by way of tax on sales effected by him at Sangli in the State of Maharashtra in excess of the amount of tax payable by him under the provisions of the Act. This is evident from the chart given in para 11 above which shows that the amounts of tax collected and the amounts of tax assessed during the three periods were exactly the same. That being so, the provision for forfeiture contained in section 37(1) of the Act would not apply to the instant case. The order of forfeiture, therefore, would not be sustainable on this count too. 18. Having regard to the foregoing discussion we are of the clear opinion that in the instant case, the Tribunal was not justified in law in upholding the forfeiture of tax collected by the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred to us by the Tribunal is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered against the revenue. *****