JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J. 1. Heard learned Government Pleader and learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal appearing for the first respondent dealer. 2. First respondent was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. It is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and is an assessee also on the file of the fourth respondent in the year 1998. The District Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Jilla Panchayat, Kollam said to have placed orders with the respondent dealer for the purpose of purchasing three ambulances in Kollam district. According to the dealer, on the returns filed by the dealer for sales tax assessment came to be processed, wherein the tax on the three ambulances was determined at 10% and the same came to be paid also. Subsequently, they sought for refund of excess tax paid above 4% in the light of certificate dated 26.3.1998 issued by the second respondent Development Officer. This was not acceded to. Therefore, the respondent-petitioner approached this Court. It is pertinent to mention, prior to filing the Original Petition, he approached the Jilla Panchayat also seeking payment of difference of tax collected from him, i.e., 6%, as he had collected only 4% as against 10% claimed by the department. The Jilla Panchayat had also not replied. Hence, arraying District Scheduled Caste Development Officer of Jilla Panchayat and the Jilla Panchayat along with others as parties, the Original Petition came to be filed. 3. The controversy that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was, whether the sale of three ambulances was to Central Government or a State Government in order to have concessional rate of sales tax at 4% instead of normal rate of tax at 10%. The learned Judge, opining that the third respondent Jilla Panchayat being fully controlled by the Government, opined that such concessional rate of tax is applicable, therefore, directed the department to refund differential tax paid as per the assessment orders of the department to the writ petitioner-first respondent or direct the second or third respondent to pay differential tax already paid by the assessee to the department. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The first argument of learned Government Pleader is, without questioning the assessment orders, there is no justification on the part of the dealer directly approaching this Court seeking the reliefs sought in the Original Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The first argument of learned Government Pleader is, without questioning the assessment orders, there is no justification on the part of the dealer directly approaching this Court seeking the reliefs sought in the Original Petition. The second argument is that the concessional rate of tax applicable to State and Central Government Departments and also other notified departments under SRO.No.1728/1993 alone are entitled and not Jilla Panchayat, as it cannot be considered as department of Government as evident from the Government order it being a local self Government. To substantiate this argument, he also contends that in the above SRO, Jilla Panchayat is not one of the departments as the beneficiary. 5. As against this argument of the department, learned Senior Counsel contends that Exhibit P4 clearly indicates that the certificate issued by the second respondent clearly shows that he belongs to Kerala Government Department working under the aegis of Jilla Panchayat, therefore, they were justified in asking for the differential rate of tax at 6% as against 4%. On perusal of records, especially the invoice-cum-delivery challan, it indicates the name of customer as the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Kollam. Admittedly, after decentralisation of the powers vested with the Government with the advent of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Scheduled Caste Development Department is attached to Jilla Panchayat, therefore, the purchase is in the name of the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer, a Government officer, hence it has to be considered as Government Department. 6. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to formation of Panchayats, including the Jilla Panchayat, there is no separate District Scheduled Caste Development Department as it merges with the Jilla Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that the amount payable towards three ambulances was the amount paid by Jilla Panchayat and not from the account of either District Scheduled Caste Development Department or the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer's account. Irrespective of raising invoice in the name of the Development Officer or Development Department, the criterion that has to be considered is whether these three vehicles were given to the control of Jilla Panchayat or some one else. The money is paid by Jilla Panchayat. Though the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer works in Jilla Panchayat, he is considered to be working under Jilla Panchayat and not directly under the Government. The money is paid by Jilla Panchayat. Though the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer works in Jilla Panchayat, he is considered to be working under Jilla Panchayat and not directly under the Government. At the most, he may be an officer deputed to Jilla Panchayat by the Department. By virtue of this fact alone, the purchase cannot be considered as a purchase made by the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer. As the money is paid by Jilla Panchayat, it has to be considered as a purchase made by Jilla Panchayat alone. 7. In that view of the matter, in the absence of Jilla Panchayat being one of the departments notified in SRO.No.1728/1993, we fail to understand how the benefit extended to the State Department or the Central Government Department as also Electricity Board could be extended to Jilla Panchayat? In the light of Jilla Panchayat being a self Government institution and not being a department notified under the above SRO, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in extending such benefit to the purchases made by Jilla Panchayat. 8. So far as the claim of the assessee, if he were to pay 10% rate of interest on the sales made by him, he has to collect the same from the customer, who purchased the ambulances from him, i.e., Jilla Panchayat or District Scheduled Caste Development Officer attached, in whose name the invoice was raised. There cannot be any direction to the first respondent to direct either the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer or the Jilla Panchayat to pay the differential amount. Since the transaction is a commercial transaction between the dealer and the customer, it is left to the dealer to recover the difference of tax paid by him from the customer to whom he had supplied the vehicles. With the above observations, we allow the Writ Appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.