JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—Sri M.V. Sheshachala takes notice for respondent-revenue. 2. These two appeals and cross-appeals are taken up for consideration together as all these appeals are preferred against the very same order and they are disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee is engaged in wholesale business of selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor to retailers. According to the ITO (TDS), Ward No. 1, Tumkur, while selling IMFL to retailers the assessee was liable to collect tax under section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Act"). As tax was not collected and paid to the Government account, the assessee was treated as a defaulter and a demand was raised against the assessee and interest was also charged under section 206C(7) by a separate order? Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate Authority, which however came to be dismissed upholding the order passed by the Income Tax Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of this Court in Excise Commissioner and Another Vs. Mysore Sales International Ltd. and Others, (2006) 286 ITR 136 KAR wherein the contention of the assessee that the retailers cannot be treated as buyers has been decided against the assessee and further held that if such a buyer has paid tax, adjustment should be given to the assessee and accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the ITO (TDS) to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations in the aforesaid judgment, in particular Paragraph 34. In the light of the aforesaid position, the Tribunal has confirmed the findings of the ITO (TDS). Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal challenging that portion of the order setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below and remanding the matters back to the authorities for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in Para 34 of the aforesaid judgment. The assessee has also preferred the cross-appeals challenging the finding recorded in Para 39 of the aforesaid judgment relying on which it was held that the assessee is a buyer as defined under the Act. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. The assessee has also preferred the cross-appeals challenging the finding recorded in Para 39 of the aforesaid judgment relying on which it was held that the assessee is a buyer as defined under the Act. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Section 206C of the Act which specifically deals with only six types of transactions provides that every person, being a seller, shall at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the account of the buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from the said buyer in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in Column No. (2) of the Table below, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in Column (3) of the said Table, of such amount as income-tax and remit the amounts so collected to the credit of the Central Government as the Board directs. 6. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that though assessee collects the tax and remit the money to the Government, the said amount remitted will be to the account of the buyer. In other words, the said amount will be given deductions towards the tax payable by the buyer. If in a given case the assessee has not collected the tax from the buyer and if the buyer has paid tax to the revenue, the revenue is not deprived of the tax which is legitimately due to them. It is in that context, before proceeding against the assessee, it is necessary to find out whether the buyer has paid tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and only in the event the buyer has not paid the tax then the authorities can proceed against the assessee who was under the obligation to collect tax and remit to the Government. It is well-settled law that there cannot be any double payment of tax. It is in that context as the material on record did not disclose all these particulars, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the authorities and remitted the matter back to the original authority to undertake this exercise. It is well-settled law that there cannot be any double payment of tax. It is in that context as the material on record did not disclose all these particulars, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the authorities and remitted the matter back to the original authority to undertake this exercise. It is in that context, it is stated that the directions issued in the aforesaid case by this Court should be borne in mind. Under these circumstances, we do not find any irregularity committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order, calling for interference. 7. Insofar as the question whether the purchaser from the assessee satisfies the definition of buyer is not decided. As the said question also can be agitated by the assessee before the appellate Authority and in the event, he do not succeed in satisfying the authority in an appeal to be preferred against the said order, he could reagitate the matter. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in both the appeals as well as the cross-appeals. 8. Accordingly, both the appeals and cross appeals are dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the appellate Authority on receipt of a copy of this order shall issue notice to both the parties and hear the assessee, consider his contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. Sri M.V. Sheshachala, is permitted to file Vakalath within four weeks.