ORDER ARAVIND KUMAR :- The petitioner is a construction company and had obtained works contract for construction of hospital at White Field. The assessing authority came to a conclusion that, for the assessment year 1999-2000 the assessee was liable for payment of tax under section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") and accordingly, exempted the same on a turnover of Rs. 15,90,40,822. However, the entire turnover claim in respect of works executed by the sub-contractor was held to attract section 6B of the Act and accordingly, levied tax at three per cent. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order before the Joint Commissioner of Appeals in KST Appeal No. 310/03-04 which came to be dismissed by order dated April 28, 2004 which related to disposal of the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment order and also the rectification order. This order came to be assailed by the appellant herein before the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 1930 of 2004. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and it is this order which is now assailed in this revision petition by contending that the levy of tax at three per cent by invoking section 6B of the Act on the payments made to sub-contractors is without authority of law since all such payments did not involve any transfer of property in goods from sub-contractors to the petitioner and in respect of such payments there was no sale or turnover which comes within the definition of the expression "sale" and "turnover" and hence it was claimed that section 6B of the Act is not attracted. We have heard Sri Rabinathan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. We have heard Sri Rabinathan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. This court by order dated October 11, 2007 while admitting the revision petition has formulated the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether in spite of the statutory provisions under the KST Act and Rules, 1957 and judicial pronouncements that there is only one 'sale' and 'turnover' involved in the works contract executed by a sub-contractor directly to the employer/contractee, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in having held that in respect of the payments made by the petitioner to the sub-contractors, besides the sub-contractors, the petitioner is also liable to pay turnover tax at three per cent prescribed under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ? (ii) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in having held that the petitioner is not eligible for deduction under rule 6(4)(n)(iii) of the KST Rules, 1957 on the payments made to sub-contractors merely because the petitioner could not produce proof that the sub-contractors had declared the turnovers corresponding to such payments in the monthly statements/annual returns filed by them, when the petitioner had furnished proof that the sub-contractors were dealers registered under the KST Act, 1957 which was substantial compliance with the rule to entitle to the petitioner to the deduction claimed ? (iii) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in having held that the petitioner was liable to pay purchase tax under section 6 of the KST Act, 1957 on the purchases of sand and jelly in spite of the fact that the dealers who sold the sand and jelly to the petitioner had attained total turnovers exceeding Rs. 2,00,000 in the year and therefore were liable to registration and payment of tax ? The issue that arises for consideration is, whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the sub-contractor would attract a levy of turnover tax under section 6B in the hands of the appellant. The assessing officer vide the assessment order has accepted the admissibility of exemption from payment of tax under section 5B of a turnover of Rs. 15,90,40,822 which amounts have been paid to the sub-contractor by the contractor. Thus, the said amount could not be brought within the turnover of the contractor who is the revision petitioner herein. The assessing officer vide the assessment order has accepted the admissibility of exemption from payment of tax under section 5B of a turnover of Rs. 15,90,40,822 which amounts have been paid to the sub-contractor by the contractor. Thus, the said amount could not be brought within the turnover of the contractor who is the revision petitioner herein. It is precise this amount which has been brought within the ambit of "total turnover" which is now challenged in this revision petition. In view of the fact that the Assessment Officer himself having allowed the admissibility of exemption, on payment of tax under section 5B of the Act, in respect of this amount naturally this amount could not have been included in the total turnover of the present revision petitioner and brought it within the definition of "total turnover" of the petitioner. The issue regarding the contract being one not in dispute for the same works contract, the Revenue cannot levy tax twice as it amounts to double taxation and it is for the parties to decide as to whether the sub-contractor who claims to have received sum of Rs. 15,90,40,822 from the contractor would come within the purview of section 6B on examination of records. This exercise is required to be done by the Assessing Officer after calling upon the sub-contractor to produce the details as to their turnover and then give a finding on this issue. We find from the records that the authorities have erred in not carrying out this exercise, but on the other hand, have brought the amount paid by the contractor to the sub-contractor within the total turnover of the contractor himself which is not permissible. Particularly, the authorities having accepted the admissibility of exemption from payment of tax under section 5B by the contractor to the extent of the amount of Rs. 15.90 crores. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the payments made by the petitioner to the sub-contractors would come within the purview of turnover and liable to pay turnover tax of three per cent under section 6B of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question of law framed hereinabove one and two in favour of the revision petitioner and against the Revenue on the facts of this case only. Accordingly, we answer the question of law framed hereinabove one and two in favour of the revision petitioner and against the Revenue on the facts of this case only. However, we make it clear that the authorities are at liberty to call upon the sub-contractor to furnish the details for the relevant period to demonstrate that their turnover including the sub-contract accepted by them from the revision petitioner and demonstrate before the authorities that they would stand outside the purview of section 6B of the Act or otherwise and on consideration of such material that may be placed before the sub-contractor, the authorities may adjudicate upon the same and give a finding as to whether the provision of section 6B of the Act is attracted insofar sub-contractors are concerned and if it is held so then the authorities would be entitled to levy and collect the turnover tax from the said sub-contractor. Insofar as question No. 3 which is formulated hereinabove, the authorities have considered the submissions and also the material placed by the revision petitioner and have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax and we do not see any grounds to deviate from the said view taken by the authorities. Accordingly, we confirm the said view and answer question No. 3 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part and subject to the observations made hereinabove.