ORDER N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the revisional authority under section 22A(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, forfeiting the sales tax paid by the assessee to the Government and rejecting his request for refund of the wrongly collected amount. The assessee is a trader dealing with gutkha, panmasala, being tobacco products. Initially, no sales tax was leviable on the said tobacco products. However, by an amendment to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, Second Schedule, by Act No. 7 of 1997 which came into effect from April 1, 1997, tobacco products including gutkha and the like but excluding such products as specified elsewhere in any of the Schedule was introduced in the Second Schedule, Part (T) of the Act from April 1, 1997 and the rate of tax prescribed was 50 per cent. However, it was reduced to 15 per cent by the Notification dated May 5, 1997. According to section 5(iii)(a) which is the charging section, the tax is levied on the said products. The assessee paid tax at 15 per cent for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. It is the case of the assessee that when he paid the tax, he was not charging and securing tax from its customer on its sale invoice. The books of account maintained by him also do not show any collection of taxes. However, the sales tax was enumerated at the prescribed rate and remitted regularly out of the sale consideration received. For the assessment year 1997-98 he has declared the sales turnover of gutkha at Rs. 57,38,674 in his monthly and annual returns at 15 per cent. He has paid a sum of Rs. 8,60,801 as tax. The assessment order came to be passed on February 8, 1999 accepting his return. The said exemption of sale tax was the subject-matter of challenge before the apex court. The apex court in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 119 STC 553 held that, "gutkha was a tobacco product and the State Government did not have the power to impose sales tax on it as additional excise duty was being levied by the Central Government on the said product and therefore, the said entry in the Act was held to be unconstitutional". After the said judgment the assessee filed an application for rectification of the assessment order. 3. After the said judgment the assessee filed an application for rectification of the assessment order. 3. After hearing the assessee as per annexure C dated March 22, 2002 in exercise of the powers vested under section 25A of the Act the assessment order was rectified and no tax was levied on the sales of gutkha. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed, the assessee filed an application for refund of the sales tax paid on the sales turnover on gutkha during the year 1998-99. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the said request for refund on the ground that the dealers have passed on the burden of tax to the purchasers/consumers. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising powers under section 18AA of the Act held the tax paid cannot be forfeited because no tax is collected by the assessee in the bills and therefore he is entitled for refund of the same by his order dated May 28, 2007. After passing of the said order the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a notice under section 22A(2) of the KST Act calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should not be set aside and the amount of Rs. 8,60,801 which is wrongly paid by him should not be forfeited. Thereafter the assessee appeared before him and filed a detailed statement of objections and also produced the documents which were in his custody and contended that the said amount cannot be forfeited but it has to be refunded. In the course of the said proceedings the Commissioner wanted to look into the documents pertaining to other dealers who are in the same business. For the purpose of comparison with the assessee's returns he issued one more notice bringing to their notice those extraneous matters and calling upon the assessee to have his say in the matter. Even to that the assessee filed his reply in writing. It is after considering all these materials and after an enquiry the Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the assessee has wrongly collected the amount of Rs. 8,61,801 from her customers as tax for the assessment year 1997-98 and remitted the same to the Government and therefore the same is liable to be forfeited to the Government. It is after considering all these materials and after an enquiry the Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the assessee has wrongly collected the amount of Rs. 8,61,801 from her customers as tax for the assessment year 1997-98 and remitted the same to the Government and therefore the same is liable to be forfeited to the Government. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee for refund of wrongly collected tax was directed to be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in terms of his order. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee is before this court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the assessee has collected the tax from the consumers or has passed on the liability of tax to the customers. When admittedly the assessee has paid the tax wrongly he is entitled to refund of the same and forfeiture of the said amount is impermissible. In coming to the conclusion that the assessee has passed on the tax liability to the customers the Commissioner has relied on extraneous materials which is improper. Assuming that such extraneous material was relevant and the said material discloses that the assessee has passed on the liability of tax to the customers, the appropriate order the Commissioner was expected to pass is to set aside the assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority so that the assessee would have an effective opportunity to counter those material. If any order adverse to his interest has been passed, his right of first appeal, second appeal or revision is now taken away by the impugned order. Lastly, he submitted that admittedly in the sales bills raised by the assessee this tax is not mentioned. The account books produced by the assessee also do not show that the assessee has collected the tax. In those circumstances the Commissioner was not justified in holding that the assessee has passed on the liability of tax to the customers and therefore he is not entitled to refund and the said amount is to be forfeited. Therefore he submitted that the impugned order requires to be set aside. 5. Per the contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 6. Therefore he submitted that the impugned order requires to be set aside. 5. Per the contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 6. From the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions it is not in dispute that the assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Suresh Agencies at Mangalore and dealing in tobacco, gutkha and pan parag. It is also not in dispute that the assessee is not a manufacturer of the said product. The assessee was not paying any sales tax on the said products in particular pan parag because the said goods were entered in Fifth Schedule up to March 31, 1997. Even now the said entries continues in the Fifth Schedule. The said entry was deleted for the first time with effect from April 1, 2002. Therefore as there was no liability to levy and pay tax on tobacco products admittedly the assessee has not paid any tax to the Government in respect of the said goods. The Karnataka Legislature by Act No. 7 of 1997, which came into effect on April 1, 1997, amended the Second Schedule and introduced entry 9A at Part T as under :- SI No. Description of goods Period for which applicable Rate of tax 9A Tobacco products including gutkha and the like but excluding such products as specified elsewhere in any of the Schedules 1-4-97 to 31-1-02 1-4-02 to 31-7-04 From 1-8-2004 Twenty per cent Twenty-five per cent Twenty-eight per cent 7. It is because of the said amendment which came into effect from April 1, 1997, the assessee being a registered dealer under the Act was under an obligation to levy the tax as mentioned in the aforesaid provision and after such collection to pay it to the Government. Realising the said responsibility it is not in dispute that the assessee has promptly paid the tax at the rate of 15 per cent for the sale of pan parag to the Government for the year 1997-98. The total turnover of this product for the year 1997-98 is Rs. 57,38,674. As against the said sales turnover he has remitted a sum of Rs. 8,60 801, in this regard to the Government. The said demand was made on account of the statutory liability imposed on him. The total turnover of this product for the year 1997-98 is Rs. 57,38,674. As against the said sales turnover he has remitted a sum of Rs. 8,60 801, in this regard to the Government. The said demand was made on account of the statutory liability imposed on him. The said amendment was challenged by other dealers and the apex court in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 119 STC 553 held that the said registered dealer had no obligation to impose the sales tax on the said product as additional excise duty was being levied by the Central Government on the said product and therefore the said tax was not payable or liable to be paid by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid judgment the assessee filed an application for rectification of the assessment order which was allowed. It is thereafter the proceedings were initiated by the Department for forfeiting the said amount on the ground that the assessee has wrongly paid the said tax to the Government, as she has collected the said tax from the customers, she is not entitled to refund but the said amount is to be forfeited to the Government. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepting the case of the assessee has held in categorical terms that section 18AA of the Act clearly states that if the assessee had collected the tax from the dealers then the excess collected amount can be forfeited to the Government under the Act as the assessee has not collected the tax on the sales bills the question of forfeiture does not arise. Section 18AA reads as under : Payment and disbursement of amounts wrongly collected by dealer as tax.-(1) Where any amount is collected by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax from any person by any dealer in contravention of section 18, whether knowingly or not, such dealer shall pay the entire amount so collected, to the assessing authority within twenty days after the close of the month in which such amount was collected, notwithstanding that the dealer is not liable to pay such amount as tax or that only a part of it is due from him as tax under this Act. (2) If default is made in payment of the amount in accordance with sub-section (1),- (i) the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the dealer; (ii) the dealer liable to pay the amount shall pay interest at the rate of two and one half per cent of such amount for each month of default; and (iii) the whole of the amount remaining unpaid along with the interest calculated under clause (ii) of this sub-section shall be recoverable in the manner specified in section 13. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force, any amount paid or payable by any dealer under sub-section (1), shall, to the extent it is not due as tax be forfeited to the State Government and be recovered from him and such payment or recovery shall discharge him of the liability to refund the amount to the person from whom it was collected. (4) Where any amount is paid or recovered by or from any dealer under sub-section (1) or (3), a refund of such amount for any part thereof can be claimed from Government by the person from whom it was realised by way of tax provided an application in writing in the prescribed form is made to the Commissioner, within two years from the date of the order of forfeiture. On receipt of any such application, the Commissioner shall hold such inquiry as he deems fit and if the Commissioner is satisfied that the claim is valid and admissible and that the amount so claimed as refund is actually paid or recovered, he shall refund the amount or any part thereof, which is found due to the person concerned. (5) Where any amount is collected by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax in contravention of section 18 at any time before the commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992, the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall apply to such amount collected. 8. Nowhere in the section it is stated that if the assessee has collected the tax on the bills, then only the said amount is liable to be forfeited and is not entitled to refund. 8. Nowhere in the section it is stated that if the assessee has collected the tax on the bills, then only the said amount is liable to be forfeited and is not entitled to refund. The words "on the bills" on which the reliance is placed by the Deputy Commissioner did not find a place in section 18AA of the Act. In fact he has virtually re-written the section. It is in these circumstances as the said order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the Commissioner by virtue of the power of revision conferred under the statute issued a notice to the assessee calling upon her to show cause as to why the said order of the Deputy Commissioner should not be set aside and the amount of Rs. 8,60,801 which is wrongly collected be forfeited to the Government. 9. From the material on record it is clear that in the sales bills raised by the assessee there is no mention about the tax component. Even in the accounts which is maintained by her she has not made any separate entry showing the value of the goods and the tax payable. Further she has paid the tax on the total turnover without excluding from the said total the tax component. Relying on these three undisputed material on record it is contended that the Commissioner was in error in ignoring the same and in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and in forfeiting the said amount. It is further argued that the court cannot draw any presumption in law that the assessee has collected the tax from its customers. Whether the tax is collected or not is purely a question of fact. It has to be decided from the facts and circumstances of each case. Seen from any angle it was contended that there is no material on record which shows that the assessee has collected the tax from the customers whereas the material on record shows that he has not collected the tax and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. 10. We have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has taken pains not only to consider the detailed pleadings of the parties but also the records produced by him. 10. We have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has taken pains not only to consider the detailed pleadings of the parties but also the records produced by him. At page 6, para 11 it is stated that "I have closely examined the documents found in the related assessment file of the DCCT. One such document is the statement of purchase and sales furnished by the assessee to the DCCT, found at pages 43 to 47 of the file. In page 43, the worth of goods sold locally is shown as Rs. 57,38,674 and in the statement below that, under the heading 'details of taxable turnover liable under sales tax7, 'local sales of gutkha turnover Rs. 57,38,674, tax at 15 per cent Rs. 8,60,801' is mentioned. In the profit and loss account furnished by her along with the letter dated March 31, 1998 found at pages 49 to 53, the sales tax and turnover tax is shown as Rs. 8,61,762. In the assessment order dated February 8,1999 made by the DCCT, the turnover of gutkha local sales is shown as Rs. 57,38,674 and tax at 15 per cent is worked out at Rs. 8,60,801." 11. The material on record clearly establishes that though in the account books maintained by the assessee it has not bifurcated the value of the goods and the tax payable, it is mentioned in the said accounts that the tax payable for the turnover is at Rs. 8,60,801. There is no indication in the said books, that wantonly the assessee has not collected the said tax from the customers. The second material on which reliance was placed by the Commissioner is at para 22 which reads as under : While deciding similar requests for refund of wrongly collected tax on gutkha, it has come to the notice of this office that in the said years, the sachet of pan parag gutkha contained a printed statement that the price was inclusive of all taxes. So, a consumer while purchasing gutkha from the retailer would have purchased it consciously and well knowing that the price is inclusive of all taxes. 12. This discloses that the assessee not being a manufacturer and only a dealer has sold the sachet which contains an express statement that the price was inclusive of all taxes. Therefore, the purchaser has paid the price plus the tax. 12. This discloses that the assessee not being a manufacturer and only a dealer has sold the sachet which contains an express statement that the price was inclusive of all taxes. Therefore, the purchaser has paid the price plus the tax. If while raising the bill the tax component is not mentioned may be the books also did not contain this bifurcation probably as the said amendment was challenged in the apex court the assessee wanted to take a chance. Though she could not have avoided the payment of tax she has promptly paid the tax. There was no prohibition for her to collect the tax form the customers. She collected the tax by virtue of the statement which was in the sachet and therefore the customers have paid the price plus the tax. It is by raising the sales bills and without properly maintaining the accounts, now relying on the judgment of the apex court an attempt is made to contend that they have not collected the tax from the customers. It is in this context the Commissioner at para 12 was right in observing that "as the law stood then, gutkha was not exempt from sales tax. So, the assessee was very well aware that she is liable to collect and pay sales tax on gutkha sold by her. She was also aware that sales tax is levied at the point of sale and therefore she was required to collect it from her customers. When that is so, a question arises as to what prevented her from collecting the sales tax from her customers and showing the sales tax amount separately in the sale bills. Having a legal obligation and right to collect the sales tax in the sale bills and then an obligation to remit the same to the Government, the assessee purportedly remitted the same out of her gross profit". 13. The finding is based on the aforesaid material on record. It is not a mere assumption or guesswork by the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not stop there. He also wanted to make sure factually that the said finding is correct. Therefore, he secured the sales bills and sales particulars of other dealers who are dealing with the very same products before acting on the said documents. It is not a mere assumption or guesswork by the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not stop there. He also wanted to make sure factually that the said finding is correct. Therefore, he secured the sales bills and sales particulars of other dealers who are dealing with the very same products before acting on the said documents. He issued one more notice to the assessee bringing to her notice the aforesaid material and calling upon her to show cause as to why the said material should not be taken into consideration. The said material compared with the returns filed by the assessee clearly demonstrate that the amount collected by the assessee is more than what they had collected inclusive of tax and therefore he was of the view that though in the sales bill and account book this tax component is not mentioned the amount which is received as sales consideration was inclusive of tax component. From the aforesaid material we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on legal evidence, in accordance with law and do not call for any interference. 14. It was nextly contended that if the Commissioner wanted to take note of ' this extraneous material he should have set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration giving the assessee an opportunity to controvert those extraneous material. In which event if the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer had a right of first appeal, second appeal and then revision to this court and such a legal remedy is now taken away by the Commissioner. We do not see any substance in the said contention. It is not a case of assessment or reassessment. The facts are not in dispute. The only question is though the assessee has paid the tax wrongly has she collected the tax from the customers ? The Commissioner is vested with the power to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes if it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that is precisely what he has done. Once he records a finding which is contrary to the assessee the statute provides for an appeal to this court. It is well-settled that no one has a vested right of appeal. It is a statutory right. Once he records a finding which is contrary to the assessee the statute provides for an appeal to this court. It is well-settled that no one has a vested right of appeal. It is a statutory right. The right of appeal has to be worked out within the four corners of law. When the law provides for a statutory appeal against the order of the Commissioner it is not open to the assessee to contend that he should have a right of first appeal, second appeal or revision as provided against the assessment order and therefore we do not see any merit in the said contention. 15. In so far as the contention that if the extraneous material which has been included there is no material on the basis of which he could have come to the said conclusion. In this regard also we do not see any substance in the said contention. Even if the extraneous material is excluded, as stated above the material on record is sufficient to hold that the assessee has collected the tax from the customers and therefore we do not see any substance in the said contention. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Further, if it is to be held that a sum of Rs. 57,38,674 is the total sales turnover and Rs. 8,60,801 is the tax payable thereon. If a sum of Rs. 57,38,674 includes the tax component then the tax payable would not be Rs. 8,60,801. Now, this finding recorded by the Commissioner in which event admittedly the amount of Rs. 8,60,801 paid is excessive. To the extent of tax paid in excess is to be refunded to the assessee. To that extent the assessee would be entitled to the refund and the authorities would be justified in forfeiting the rest of the amount. Ordered accordingly.