JUDGMENT N. Kumar - Admit. By consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. This appeal is by the assessee, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes holding that the tax payable under section 6B of the Act would be in addition to tax payable under section 5B of the Act and that sections 5B and 6B are independent charging sections of the Act and a works contractor is liable to tax under both the charging sections. The facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee is a company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is liable to tax under section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). Section 6B of the Act was substituted by Act No. 5 of 2002 with effect from April 1, 2002 in terms of which there was to be levied, tax at 1 1/2 per cent. on such portion of the total turnover which is not liable to tax under section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 6. Provisos (i) to (xi) of the said provision exempted certain parts of such turnover from the levy. After amendment of section 6B, the appellant approached the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Authority") by filing an application in Form No. 54 seeking clarification as to whether the local registered dealer - purchases would be liable to tax under section 6B of the Act. The authority passed an order on May 23, 2003 clarifying that tax under section 6B was payable on the turnovers relating to tax suffered on goods purchased from local registered dealers and which are used in the execution of works contracts. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to this court under section 24 of the Act. This court set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Authority for reconsideration. The Authority on reconsideration held that the assessee being liable to tax under section 5B was not liable to resale tax under section 6B. The assessee received a notice dated November 17, 2006 under section 22-A(2) of the Act from the respondent proposing to set aside the Authority's order dated March 31, 2006. The assessee filed its objections to the Commissioner's notice. The assessee received a notice dated November 17, 2006 under section 22-A(2) of the Act from the respondent proposing to set aside the Authority's order dated March 31, 2006. The assessee filed its objections to the Commissioner's notice. The Commissioner held that the assessee was liable to resale taxes under section 6B of the Act in respect of the goods purchased by it from registered dealers and used in the execution of the works contracts. The assessee then preferred an appeal to this court against the said order. The said order of the Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. After such remand, the Commissioner passed an order on April 19, 2010 and held that the turnover would be liable to resale tax under section 6B of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, again the assessee is before this court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the assessee is liable to pay taxes under section 5B of the Act. When once it has paid tax under section 5B, as is clear from the wordings of section 6B, on such portion of his total turnover which has suffered tax under section 5B, no resale tax is leviable under section 6B. Similarly, clause 10 of proviso to section 6B categorically discloses that the total amount paid or payable by the dealer as consideration for the purchase of any of the goods in respect of which tax is leviable at the point of sale, is also not liable to tax under section 6B. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner that the assessee is liable to pay tax under both the charging sections, viz., 5B and 6B, is ex facie erroneous and therefore, he contends that the said findings requires to be set aside and in fact, the findings recorded by the authorities on March 31, 2006 requires to be upheld. Per contra, learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under : "What is the turnover on which resale tax is payable under section 6B ?" Section 5 of the Act is the charging section. It provides that every dealer shall pay for each year tax on his taxable turnover at the rate prescribed at the point of first sale. It provides that every dealer shall pay for each year tax on his taxable turnover at the rate prescribed at the point of first sale. Section 5A deals with taxation of industrial inputs. Section 5B deals with levy of tax on transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in some other form involved in the execution of works contract. Every dealer under the aforesaid provision shall pay for each year a tax under this Act on his taxable turnover of transfer of property in goods whether as goods or any other form involved in the works contract mentioned in column (2) of the Sixth Schedule at the rates specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule. Section 5C deals with levy of tax on the transfer of right to use any goods. Section 6 provides for levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances. Section 6A deals with burden of proof. Section 6B deals with levy of resale tax which was substituted by Act No. 5 of 2002 with effect from April 1, 2002. It reads as under : "6B. Levy of resale tax. - (1) Every registered dealer and every dealer who is liable to get himself registered under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 10 whose total turnover in a year is not less than the turnovers specified in the said sub-sections, shall be liable to pay tax at the rate of one and half per cent. of such portion of the total turnover which is not liable to tax under section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 6 :" A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that every registered dealer is liable to pay resale tax at the rate of 1 1/2 per cent. of "such portion of total turnover" which is not liable to tax under sections 5, 5A, 5B, 5C and 6 of the Act. In other words, if tax is liable to be paid on such turnover under section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 6 of the Act, resale tax is not leviable. In other words, resale tax is leviable on such portion of the total turnover which does not form part of the turnover under section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 6 of the Act. The reason is not far to seek. In other words, resale tax is leviable on such portion of the total turnover which does not form part of the turnover under section 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 6 of the Act. The reason is not far to seek. The intention behind in enacting section 5B of the Act is to levy tax on that turnover which has not suffered the tax under the Act. Resale tax is also not leviable on such turnover as set out in the proviso. Clause (x) of the proviso reads as under : "(x) all total amount paid or payable by the dealer as a consideration for the purchase of any of the goods in respect of which tax is leviable at the point of sale." Therefore, resale tax is not leviable on such goods which has suffered tax under clause (x) of the proviso. Though sections 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6 and 6B of the Act are independent charging sections, if a registered dealer has paid the tax under any one of those sections, he is not liable to pay resale tax on that turnover which forms part of levy under the aforesaid provisions and is liable to pay resale tax only on such portion of the total turnover which has not yet suffered tax. This is clear from the fact that when the Finance Minister in his budget speech on March 21, 2002 has categorically stated as under : "177. VAT entails multi-point levy of tax at all points of production and distribution. The second and subsequent dealers in the trade channel who are currently paying a nominal non-passable turnover tax of one per cent. would have to pay tax under VAT which could be higher but collectable. As an intermediate measure and to prepare dealers for a smooth transit to VAT, I propose to introduce a collectable resale tax of 1.5 per cent. Most of the commodities, which are totally exempt from tax on their second and subsequent sales, however, are proposed to be exempt from this new levy. This collectable new levy should induce the entire trade to issue bills on all their sales." Therefore, it is clear that the principle of single point taxation is respected. There was no intention to levy double tax on dealers and the object is only to tax that portion of the turnover which has not suffered tax under the Act. This collectable new levy should induce the entire trade to issue bills on all their sales." Therefore, it is clear that the principle of single point taxation is respected. There was no intention to levy double tax on dealers and the object is only to tax that portion of the turnover which has not suffered tax under the Act. More importantly, that tax is made collectable from the customers. In this background, we will look into the order of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has observed as under : "The applicant, as a works contractor, effects second and subsequent transaction of sales while using goods that have suffered tax at first point of sale in the execution of works contract. Hence the applicant is liable to pay resale tax under section 6B in respect of second and subsequent sales of goods which have been purchased from local registered dealers. It will be in addition to tax payable under section 5B of the Act in respect of first sale of goods in execution of works, i.e., transfer value of goods purchased from outside the State and unregistered dealers. It is to be noted that sections 5B and 6B are independent charging sections of the Act and that a works contractor sourcing his purchases from outside the State, local registered dealers and unregistered dealers for execution of works contract would be liable to tax under both the charging sections, i.e., tax under section 5B in respect of first deemed sale of goods and tax under section 6B on deemed second and subsequent sale of goods involved in the execution of works contract. Such levies are mutually exclusive as the turnovers for levy of these two taxes are different." The said reasoning runs counter to the express provisions contained in section 6B of the Act and to the assurance given by the Finance Minister at the time of initiating the said amendment on the floor of the State Legislature. It is clear from the above provision that resale tax is only on such portion of the turnover which is not liable to tax under section 5B of the Act in the case of a works contract. In other words, that portion of the turnover which is liable to tax under section 5B of the Act is not liable to resale tax under section 6B of the Act. In other words, that portion of the turnover which is liable to tax under section 5B of the Act is not liable to resale tax under section 6B of the Act. Clause (x) of the proviso of section 6B of the Act exempts resale tax on consideration paid on purchase of goods, i.e., turnover of goods which are liable to tax on the first point of sale. Therefore, the tax paid by the registered dealer on the turnover which is the subject-matter of tax under section 5B of the Act and tax paid by the registered dealer which is the subject-matter of clause (x) of the proviso to section 6B are to be excluded from the purview of section 6B of the Act. The resale tax under section 6B of the Act is payable only on the turnover over and above those two turnovers. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Commissioner runs counter to the express provisions contained in section 6B and cannot therefore be sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The order dated March 31, 2006 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority is restored.