ORDER K. L. MANJUNATH, J. - This revision petition is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated December 26, 2006 in STA No. 126/2004 which appeal was preferred by the petitioner - assessee under section 22(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 challenging the order dated October 27, 2003 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), City Division II, Bangalore in CST AP. No. 12/2003-04 wherein the Joint Commissioner had dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the assessing authority under section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 for the year 2000-01. At the time of admission the matter was admitted to answer the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessing authority can invoke powers vested under section 18AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, in order to forfeit the excess tax paid under Central Sales Tax Act, pursuant to section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?" The facts leading to this case are as hereunder : The assessee is a dealer both under the KST as well as CST Acts. He is engaged in manufacturing uninterrupted power supply. For the relevant assessment year he filed the returns and he also paid the Central sales tax collected by him from its customers and thereafter a revised return was filed stating that he is entitled for readjustment of tax and sought for refund of extra sales tax paid by him. The assessing officer considering that the assessee instead of collecting four per cent from its customers had collected ten per cent and extra amount collected by him from the customers amounts to unjust enrichment and not liable for refund of the amount as the same will not be refunded to the customers. Accordingly request of the petitioner was turned down by the assessing officer, against which the assessee filed the appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which appeal also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the authorities below a second appeal is preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which is also ended in vain. Thereafter the present petition is filed. Mr. Parameswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the authorities have wrongly held that the assessee himself has filed the revised return only to enrich himself in an unjustified manner. Thereafter the present petition is filed. Mr. Parameswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the authorities have wrongly held that the assessee himself has filed the revised return only to enrich himself in an unjustified manner. According to him the assessee had sold the goods manufactured by it inclusive of tax. Therefore the assessee was entitled for filing a revised assessment highlighting the prices of the accessories sold by the petitioner to its customers. In support of his submission he has relied upon two judgments : (i) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002] 49 RLT 1 (SC), and (ii) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore [1971] 28 STC 331 (SC). Relying upon these two judgments he contends that the assessee is entitled to quote price of his choice and that the amount collected by him cannot be treated as towards tax. He further contends that the Tribunal as well as the other authorities did not consider that the assessee had inherent power to file revised return and was entitled to collect additional extra tax paid by the assessee and he can seek for refund of the excess tax. Under the circumstances, he requested the court to allow the revision petition answering the question of law in favour of the assessee and to direct the Revenue to refund the excess tax paid by the assessee. Per contra the learned Government Advocate submits that consideration of the invoices, bills, etc., produced by the assessee would clearly establish that the assessee had collected Central excise at the rate of ten per cent in some other cases at 10.5 per cent as against four per cent from its customers. He had actually paid CST collected by the assessee to the Department and thereafter the assessee with an intention to enrich himself in an unjust way by revised assessment, the assessee sought for refund of the tax paid by him. She submits that the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. She submits that the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. By way of reply Sri Parameswaran contends that the amount shown in the invoices is only a mere indication of the amount of tax collected and if any tax is collected by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to seek for adjustment and refund of the same. In the circumstances he prays the court to allow the revision petition. Having heard the counsel for the parties it is not in dispute that the assessee was required to collect the Central sales tax from the customers while selling its product at four per cent. Instead of collecting four per cent the invoices disclose that the assessee had collected tax at the rate of ten per cent and 10.5 per cent. Collection of excess tax from the customer is not disputed. As a prudent taxpayer he had remitted the tax which he had collected from the customers to the Department. Thereafter the assessee after becoming wise filed a revised assessment stating that cost of the product was more than the amount shown in the invoices. Therefore he was entitled to refund of the excess tax paid by him as the assessee has sold the products to the customer at a higher rate and the excess tax paid by the assessee to the Department is refundable to the assessee. In the matter of Maruti udyog Ltd. [2002] 49 RLT 1 the honourable Supreme Court was required to consider the excise duty collected by the assessee from its customer as the excise duty was payable by a dealer who is also a manufacturer and that he was always passing on excise duty to the Department. But in the instant case the assessee being a manufacturer of UPS has to collect the tax on every sale and the tax has to be born by its customer and whatever tax collected from the customer has to be passed on to the Revenue. Therefore the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC) which has been considered by the Supreme Court while considering the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002] 49 RLT 1 has. no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC) which has been considered by the Supreme Court while considering the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002] 49 RLT 1 has. no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the case of excise duty, the excise duty has to be passed on from the manufacturer to the customer and it is difficult to accept the contention of the assessee that it can revise the cost of its product as and when it requires, as no prudent business man will sell his material less than the cost plus tax to be collected from the customer. In the instant case the bills produced by the assessee would disclose that the value of the goods sold by him to its customer is shown separately. Similarly the Central sales tax paid by the customer is also shown separately and after collecting sales tax he has collected the value form the customer. This fact is not disputed by the assessee. Therefore it is clear that the assessee having collected the sales tax from its customer cannot contend that the excess collected by the assessee can be adjusted by raising the cost of goods sold by the assessee to its customer. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. case [1971] 28 STC 331, the honourable Supreme Court has considered the judgment in the case of Love v. Norman Wright (Builders) Ltd. [1944] 1 All ER 618 and held as follows : "Whenever a sale attracts purchase tax, that tax presumably affects the price which the seller who is liable to pay the tax demands but it does not cease to be the price which the buyer has to pay even if the price is expressed as x plus purchase tax." From this it is clear that in the instant case the sale attracts the purchase tax. It may affect the price of the seller. It may affect the price of the seller. But the seller is liable to pay the tax demanded and the same has to be collected from the buyer and the seller is not expected to pay the tax from his pocket when the sale is inclusive of the cost of goods plus tax, the tax collected from the buyer has to be passed on to the Revenue and on same analogy the assessee cannot be permitted to revise the invoices to contend that excess tax collected by him from the customer would be the cost of the value of the material sold by him. In view of the same, we are of the view that it is a fit case to hold that the assessee as a after-thought has devised an idea to enrich himself in an unjust manner by collecting excess tax and seek refund of the same from the revenue. Such a thing cannot be permitted by any court of law. It would be useful for us to quote a paragraph from the order of the assessing officer which reads as hereunder : "Further verification of records revealed that assessee - company on inter-State sales of UPS system has collected at ten per cent, but as per the notification No. FD 32 CBL, 97(22) dated : March 31, 1997, the payment of tax is at four per cent. Thus, it has resulted in collection of excess tax of six per cent for the year 2000-01. In this regard the company has taken the stand that since the supplies are made 'price inclusive of taxes' the price structure has to be remodified to four per cent and on the agreed value they have altered as per the model invoice given in example. In this context the assessee pleads that the charges are inclusive of taxes, i.e., irrespective of the tax structure and there is no unjust enrichment and also he has explained the circumstances for filing revised returns and pleaded to consider the same. I have gone through this letter and feel not convincing because the assessee has charged ten per cent tax and has remitted to the Department and now he cannot restructure the invoice. I have gone through this letter and feel not convincing because the assessee has charged ten per cent tax and has remitted to the Department and now he cannot restructure the invoice. If this restructuring is allowed, I do not know what will happen to the purchaser who has taken the purchase value demarking the taxes paid and already income-tax and other returns are filed before many authorities. Now as things stand, I feel there is no major financial disturbances since already many authorities have accepted this and agreed upon and now to reconsider the same will affect income-tax, excise duty and sales tax. Once the goods are sold the transaction is completed and accordingly taxes have been collected and paid. After lapse of two years this fact is brought to the notice which will have very far reaching changes on so many Departments while filing returns. Therefore, I am of the view that whatever tax is collected at ten per cent cannot be given benefit as the assessee has collected and earmarked in its books of accounts. Accordingly, the assessments are taken up for the year 2000-01 and the assessee has filed some declarations as and when it is procured before passing the assessment order. In view of this the revised return filed is not accepted and turnover as per books is adopted." From looking into this paragraph we are of the view that the assessing officer by application of mind considering the entire case of the assessee has rightly rejected the contention of the assessee and passed an order of assessment. In the circumstances the revision petition is dismissed answering the question of law against the assessee. Case Referred : Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Indore. Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State Of Rajasthan And Others. And J. K. Synthetics Ltd. V. ....