The petitioner is an Association of Drug Dealers in Assam and the same is registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. Members of the petitioner Association when they purchase medicines and drugs directly from outside Assam, the manufacturer companies charge central sales tax on the sales made to such dealers in Assam. In case the medicine/drugs are purchased from the branches of the company established in Assam then the said companies charge sales tax under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 the same being the first sale in Assam. Whenever the members of the Association imports such drugs/ medicines from outside the State (Assam) central sales tax is chargeable at the rate of 4 percent from them by the outside manufacturer or dealers and if the purchaser purchase medicine/drugs locally then the rate as applicable under Assam (Finance) Sales Tax Act is imposable and such taxes realised by the manufacturer or wholesale dealer under the Central Sales Tax or Assam (Finance) Sales Tax is paid by way of tax to the sales tax authority as the tax is only one point tax and tax is being realised by the tax authority on the first sale. Subsequent transactions are not»liable to be taxed ie the tax authority cannot make the sell of the subsequent sale being liable to tax even if the seller realised by way reimbursement an amount equal to tax that has been paid treating the same as total sale price. In the facts of this case a retailer whenever he issues cash memos to the consumer they realise the amount which is printed on the packages being the price of the goods plus sales tax paid to the wholesaler by way of reimbursement and treat the same as a part of their sale rice. Retailer could very easily add the amount paid by way of sales tax to the price written on the packages but they cannot do so in view of the fact that the Drug Prices Central Order, 1987 and Drug Prices Control Order, 1995 which have put certain parameters regarding sale of the said goods as the price to be charged. The said Orders have been issued under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said Orders have been issued under the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 17 of the Order of 1987 lays down as follows : “Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a formulation intended for sale shall display in indelible print mark on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale the maximum retail price of that formulation with the words retail price not to exceed preceding it and local taxes extra succeeding it.” 2. The said Drug Control Order 1987 has now been repealed by the 1995 Order and in place of clause 17; two clauses 14 and 15 have been substituted. Paras 14 and 15 reads as follows: “14. Carrying into effect the price fixed or revised by the Government its display and proof thereof: (1) Every manufacturer or importer shall carry into effect the price of a bulk drug or formulation as the case may be, as fixed by the Government from time to time within fifteen days from the date of notification in the Official Gazette or receipt of the order of the Government in this behalf by such manufacturer or importer. (2) Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a formulation intended for sale shall display in indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale, the retail price of that formulation, notified in the Official Gazette or ordered by the Government in this behalf with the words “retail price not to exceed” preceding it that “local tax extra” succeeding in the case of Schedule formulations : Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs the retail price of such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall not be more than the pro-rata retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa. 15. Display of price of non-Schedule formulation and price list thereof: (1) Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a non Scheduled formulation intended for sale shall display on indelible print mark on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale the retail price of that formulation with the words “maximum retail price” proceeding it and the words “inclusive of all taxes” succeeding it. Provided that in the case of container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall not be more than the pro-rata retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa.” 3. The said provisions of the Drug Control Order 1987 did not permit anybody to sale the goods beyond the price mentioned on the packages except the adding of local taxes which include the sales tax under the Sales Tax Laws. Under the new Order of 1995 such provisions are retained in clauses 14 in the cases of Scheduled formulation but for non-Scheduled formulations the maximum retail price printed on the packages can only be realised as packages contain the following words “inclusive of all taxes.” As such retailer is prevented from passing any burden on the consumer. In fixing price of different drugs clause 7 of the Control Order of 1995 provides as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 4. Dr. AK Saraf appearing for the petitioner before this Court urged that in Assam there is only one point tax payable by the wholesale dealer or manufacturer who make first sale of any goods to the purchaser who may be an intermediary purchaser or final retailer. If subsequent to the first if other sale takes place and if an amount equal to the tax amount is charged in the cash memo the same is not in fact the realisation of any tax but reimbursement of the amount paid by the intermediary or retailer by way of tax. The amount is only a part of sale price and the same has to be realised following the provisions of clause 7 of the Order 1987 and clause 14 of the Order 1995 by the seller . There is no bar from realisation of the sales tax in view of the printing on the packaging material itself. The only course open to the intermediary and retailer is to come within the entitlement as provided under clause 17 of 1987 Order and clause 14 of the 1995 Order, where the authorities have permitted realisation of local taxes, if any. A member of the Association cannot however impose any sales tax on non-scheduled items by way of price as the same has been prohibited under clause 15 of Drug Control Order 1995. A member of the Association cannot however impose any sales tax on non-scheduled items by way of price as the same has been prohibited under clause 15 of Drug Control Order 1995. It has been urged that though it is shown as tax, in fact the same is the total price of the goods. In view of the above submission the petitioners have challenged the notification passed by the Commissioner on 15.12.82. By the said notification dated 15.12.82 the Commissioner intended to clarify the position as regards deduction of sales tax and finance tax from suppliers and dealers. It was stated that a supplier would include the amount of sales tax paid by him at the point of purchase in the price of the goods and not to show it as a separate items in the bill. Subsequently, a notice or a circular dated 15th October, 1987 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia stating that the Assam (Finance) Sales Tax is not leviable in respect of sale of goods purchased within Assam. Any contraventions of the same is criminal offence. The said notification dated 15.10.87 was published in a local daily 'Anchalik Batory' reads as follows : “All concerned are hereby informed that Assam Finance Sales Tax is not liable in respect of sale of good purchased within the State of Assam. Therefore, no AFST can be realised either directly or otherwise in respect of sale, other than first point sale, in case of classified items especially medicine drugs, soaps, hair oil, tooth pastes, biscuit, baby foods, paints, varnishes etc. Under the AFST Schedule illegal realisation of any sale tax in whatsoever manner is a criminal offence and the dealer or person committing such offence is liable for punishment under the law in force. Further the members of public are requested to demand cash memo invariably while buying goods and to report to the nearest Suptt of Taxes every case of non issue of such memo by any dealer. The report may be filed in a specific form obtained from the Supdt of Taxes. The members of public are also hereby requested not to be misled by the prevalent misconception that they will have to pay something extra in form of taxes in the event of their instance upon cash memos. The report may be filed in a specific form obtained from the Supdt of Taxes. The members of public are also hereby requested not to be misled by the prevalent misconception that they will have to pay something extra in form of taxes in the event of their instance upon cash memos. It may kindly be noted that levy of sale tax in any case can be exempted neither by any dealer by any officer of the department. Therefore, demand of cash memo will not naturally effect the price to be paid by the consumer in respect of purchase of any goods (printed and published by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia Zone Tirisukia on 15th October, 1987).” The petitioner challenged the said notification dated 15.12.82 and the circular dated 15.10.87 on the ground that same are illegal and contrary to the order of the Price Control Order, 1987. According to the petitioner the said Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 specifically authorises the intermediary or the retailer to reimburse the amount by way of tax if paid, though they cannot show the same as part of the sale price. Under the said Orders if taxes are paid the same can be realised. The case of the petitioner is since there is one point tax in Assam and sales made by subsequent sellers will not attract the sale tax under the provisions of the Sales Tax cases, that does not mean that the subsequent seller shall not be entitled to reimbursement which they have paid otherwise. According to the petitioner the entire burden of tax which has been on the first point will fall on the last seller if the seller is unable to realise the amount from the consumer, if that is so, the last seller and the sellers in between would be out of business inasmuch as the earning from commission would be much less than the tax payable on the said goods. Accordingly it is submitted that though the said amount is realised by the retailer in the cashmemos showing the same to be tax the same is only reimbursement of the tax already paid at the first point. Accordingly it is submitted that though the said amount is realised by the retailer in the cashmemos showing the same to be tax the same is only reimbursement of the tax already paid at the first point. The Supreme Court in Central Wines vs. Special Commercial Tax Officer reported in (1987) 65 STC 48 wherein Supreme Court has observed : “The sale tax component of the sale price charged by the dealer to the purchase is not collected by him as an agent of the State. Even if, therefore, the bill or the voucher issued to the purchaser indicates the amount of sales tax separately what is collected by the dealer from the purchaser is not tax but is merely a part of the sale price charged by the dealer to the purchaser. So far as the statute is concerned it does not cast any obligation on the purchaser of the goods to pay any tax and therefore what is collected by the dealer from the purchaser by way of consideration for passing the property in the goods to the purchaser is the price charged by him and not tax collected by him from the purchaser. The amount of money which goes from the pocket of the purchaser to the pocket of the dealer on a condition or consideration for the passing of the property in the goods is thus the sale price and not the tax. It is the amount but for the payment of which the dealer would not transmit his title to the goods in favour of the purchaser and not any amount paid by the purchaser towards any tax liability incurred by him on making the purchaser of the goods. Nothing turns on whether the bill or voucher issued to the purchaser is so made out to show that the sale tax is charged separately. Nothing turns on whether the bill or voucher issued to the purchaser is so made out to show that the sale tax is charged separately. The consideration obtained by the dealer from the purchaser would in the eye of law be the sale price regarding of what nomenclature is given to a part of the price charged by him.” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that what the retailer is trying to realise from the consumers is the exact amount paid as tax at the first point and that is in fact a reimbursement of the said tax at the first point paid by different sellers in between ie intermediary or the last seller of the retailer. Though the amount shown is tax it is not tax, but only a reimbursement. Sales Tax Acts are not applicable and sales tax authority cannot realise any amount from such sales as tax as the same is not tax but only realisation of tax already paid at first point and sales tax authority realised its tax dues from the first seller. This amount is only reimbursement of the tax paid at the first point and it become part of the sale price and the same is permitted under the Drug Control Order 1987 and 1995. Mr. Chaliha appearing for the respondents brought to my notice to certain vouchers or cashmemos annexed to the respondents affidavit showing that no tax has been charged by the seller in those voucher or cash memos. Dr. Saraf points out that those voucher or cash memos were not issued at the first point by the manufacturer and the wholesalers. The said cash memos are issued by retailer who were prevented under the said notification of 1982 and the notice of 1987 to pass on such tax to the consumers. Being afraid of the notification of 1982 and the notice of 1987 issued by the authority the retailers have sold the medicines without charging any amount on account of tax. Mr. Chaliha did not put forward any other argument in support of the notification of 1982 and the notice of 1987. It is admitted that sale tax is payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the local Sales Act whenever there is first sale by the wholesalers or the manufacturers to the next purchaser. Mr. Chaliha did not put forward any other argument in support of the notification of 1982 and the notice of 1987. It is admitted that sale tax is payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the local Sales Act whenever there is first sale by the wholesalers or the manufacturers to the next purchaser. This is not the case of anybody including the respondent authority that at no point of time sale tax is not realised by the authority from the first seller of the medicine at the first point. Further it is not the case of the respondent authority that the intermediary or the retailer are not permitted or entitled to reimburse themselves of the tax paid at the first point. There is no bar under the Sales Tax Laws whereby the seller ie intermediary and retailer of medicine cannot realise the amount of tax from its immediate purchaser or consumers. Nothing to that effect has been brought to the notice of the Court. Provisions of the Price Control Order 1987 and 1995 specifically permits the realisation of local tax if paid as discussed above. This tax which has been realised by the intermediary or the retailer is in fact only by way of reimbursement of taxes already paid at the first point and the said amount by way of tax is realised by the sales tax authorities at the first point. As such the question of further levy of tax on the retailers or intermediary does not arise. In the premises, I allow this petition by making the Rule absolute and quash the notification dated 15.12.82 and the notice dated 15.10.87 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes and Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tihsukia.