ORDER Aravind Kumar :- The assessee is a trading company who had filed its annual returns for the period from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 declaring a total turnover of Rs. 7,18,72,700. During the course of assessment, the business unit of the assessee was inspected by the intelligence wing on April 16, 2004 and it was reported by the intelligence wing that the assessee had not collected the sales tax on some bills for the abovesaid period and the sales bills did not indicate that the taxes are inclusive. On the basis of the said report and also on consideration of the assessee's reply to the pre-assessment notice, the assessing officer disallowed the exemption on the premise that the assessee had not collected the taxes and was not entitled for refund of the same. This order came to be questioned by the assessee before the appellate authority in Appeal No. KST Appeal No. 56/05-06/03-04. In so far as this issue is concerned, the appellate authority confirmed the finding of the assessing officer by its order dated June 23, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 1023 of 2005. The Tribunal relying upon the decision in the matter of Spencer & Co. Ltd. v. State of Mysore [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) arrived at a conclusion that the assessing authority had not mentioned that the tax should be shown separately in the same bill and the decision of Spencer's case [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) referred to supra was squarely applicable to the facts of the case and allowed the appeal directing the assessing authority to deduct a sum of Rs. 82,71,479 towards collection of tax and thereafter to recalculate the total and taxable turnovers. This order of the Tribunal is now assailed by the Revenue in this revision petition contending that the burden was on the assessee to prove the fact that, in fact the tax had been collected for the said period and this obligation not having been discharged by the assessee, assessee was not entitled for the deduction as claimed. We have heard Smt. Geetha Menon, the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Chidanand Urs, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have heard Smt. Geetha Menon, the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Chidanand Urs, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The question of law that arises for our consideration is as follows : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the deduction on the amount of tax collected as per rule 6(4)(h) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ?" The learned Government Advocate would submit that the decision of Spencer's case referred to [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) is no more good law, in view of the subsequent judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. Venkatagiriah and Brothers reported in [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572, wherein their Lordships have held that in so far as the discharge of the burden with regard to tax collected lies exclusively on the assessee and it depends on facts of each case and as such, the reasons given by the Tribunal at para 9 is required to be revised by this court. Per contra, Sri Chidanand Urs would contend that rule 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules itself is sufficient to meet the argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate inasmuch as, the rule contemplates that for arriving at tax component, the Revenue will take into consideration the total turnover and from out of the total turnover being determined the tax component is deducted and as such, submits that the question of law is to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar, we find that in so far as the issue regarding the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal is concerned, i.e., Spencer's case [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) is no more goods law and in view of the subsequent judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in case of C. Venkatagiriah and Brothers [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572. It is no doubt true that under rule 6, the total turnover of a dealer is determined as enumerated therein. It is no doubt true that under rule 6, the total turnover of a dealer is determined as enumerated therein. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the authorities, i.e., the assessing officer as well as the intelligence wing of the Revenue, having come to a factual finding that the invoices/sales bills produced before the authorities by the assessee do not depict as taxes having been collected. The burden was cast on the assessee to prove the fact that it had in fact collected the sales taxes on those bills covered from the period April 1, 2003 to November 30, 2003. We see from the records that the assessing officer has neither examined this issue calling upon the assessee to prove this fact nor the assessee has proved this fact by any cogent evidence that taxes for the period referred to above had in fact been collected. In view of this, we are of the opinion that this being a fact-finding exercise, which required to be carried out by the assessing officer, we hereby direct that the assessing officer to examine the claim of the assessee with reference to the records, as also the sales bills and any other documentary evidence that may be placed by the assessee to establish the fact that the taxes have been collected by the assessee and in the event, the assessing officer were come to the conclusion that taxes had been collected, it is needless to say that the assessee would be automatically entitled to claim the deduction of the said tax component for arriving at the total taxable turnover. In so far as rule 6 is concerned, we find that it is an enabling provision, which provides for the authorities to arrive at total turnover, or taxable turnover. The said rule by itself does not specify that the assessee is entitled to claim that there is no burden on it to prove the fact of having collected taxes from its customers. On the other hand, as held in the decision of C. Venkatagiriah's case [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572 the discharge of burden is on the assessee and Spencer's case [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) being no more good law nor can the mode of proof be reduced to a proposition of law. On the other hand, as held in the decision of C. Venkatagiriah's case [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572 the discharge of burden is on the assessee and Spencer's case [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) being no more good law nor can the mode of proof be reduced to a proposition of law. "This proof of discharge" depends upon the facts of each case as held by their Lordships in C. Venkatagiriah's case [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572, which reads as follows : "Applying the said proposition, the Tribunal held that even though the bills issued by the dealer in this case did say specifically that the price charged was inclusive of tax it cannot be held that he has collected the tax. We are of the opinion that the additional requirement envisaged in Spencer & Co. Ltd. [1970] 26 STC 283 (Mys) is not correct in law. Whether a dealer has discharged the burden that is laid upon him by the statute is a question of fact, to be decided in each case with reference to the facts and material in that case. It is not a matter of law nor can the mode of proof be reduced to a proposition of law. Sub-section (2) or sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Amendment Act do not provide for such a requirement. In such a situation, it cannot be said as a general proposition that unless the tax collected is reflected in the account books of the dealer, it cannot be said to have been collected. No such general proposition can be evolved in a matter totally within the realm of appreciation of evidence. It is up to the dealer to discharge the said burden by producing such material as he can and it is for the appropriate authority to say whether the dealer has succeeded in discharging the burden or not. In this view of the matter, we cannot agree with the Tribunal's view which has been upheld by the High Court. The endorsement in the bill that the price charged is inclusive of tax is prima facie proof against the dealer's contention. In this view of the matter, we cannot agree with the Tribunal's view which has been upheld by the High Court. The endorsement in the bill that the price charged is inclusive of tax is prima facie proof against the dealer's contention. Unless he produces material to displace the presumption arising from the said endorsement, he must be held to have collected the tax." In view of the above, we find that the question of law formulated by the Revenue does not call for answering particularly in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in C. Venkatagiriah's case [1994] Supp (2) SCC 572 and the "Rule of proof cannot be static and it varies from case to case". Hence, we refrain from answering the substantial question of law. Accordingly, we hold that the assessing officer should re-examine the claim of the assessee with regard to deduction of tax from the total taxable turnover and pass orders on merits after giving opportunity to the respondent - assessee and in accordance with law. We allow this revision petition in part and remit the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Parties to bear their costs.