JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. By this petition, the petitioner-Maharashtra State Tribal Development Corporation has challenged the common orders seeking recovery of the tax, interest and penalty under the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Demand notices were served on the petitioner-Corporation demanding interest and penalty for short payment of the tax collection at source under the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. For the relevant assessment years, the tax collection at source returns were filed by the petitioner-Corporation and it was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Tax Deduction at Source Circle), Nagpur that the petitioner had not collected the tax at source at the rate prescribed under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. It was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the tax was collected by the petitioner-Corporation at the rate of 5% instead of 15%. In view of the short collection of tax at source, the petitioner was made liable to pay interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in a revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. 3. Shri M.V. Samarth, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submitted that the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner-Corporation is not a “seller” as defined by the provisions of the explanation to Section 206C of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner-Corporation is required to purchase certain forest produce and goods from the tribals and the individual tribal is the first seller and the petitioner-Corporation that had sold the said produce by auction to third parties is the second seller. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act could not have been applied to a second seller. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act could not have been applied to a second seller. It is submitted that in view of clause (ii) of Explanation (a), a buyer in the further sale of goods obtained in pursuance of a sale would not be included within the term “buyer”, as defined in Explanation (a). It is submitted that since the petitioner-Corporation as a second seller was not liable to collect the tax at source, from the buyer to whom the forest produce was sold by auction, the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, could not have been applied to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. It is submitted that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the said High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax versus Virsa Singh and Co. reported in (2008) 307 ITR 30, has held that the assessee therein was not liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. 4. Shri Bhushan Mohta, the learned Counsel for the department supported the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax seeking interest and penalty from the petitioner-Corporation. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a second seller was rightly rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax by referring to the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the word “seller”, as defined in the explanation to Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, would not include an individual or a HUF and a tribal individual could not fall within the meaning of the term “seller”. It is stated that the case of the petitioner that the tribal individual was the first seller was rightly rejected by the Commissioner. It is submitted that the issue involved in the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was different and the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly not relied on the said judgment to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner. 5. For answering the question involved in this writ petition, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant provisions of Section 206C of the Act read thus:- “206C. 5. For answering the question involved in this writ petition, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant provisions of Section 206C of the Act read thus:- “206C. (1) 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 by any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in column (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. TABLE Sl. No. Nature of goods Percentage (i) Alcoholic liquor for human consumption (other than Indian made foreign liquor) and tendu leaves Ten per cent (ii) Timber obtained under a forest lease Fifteen per cent (iii) Timber obtained by any mode other than under a forest lease Five per cent (iv) Any other forest produce not being timer or Tendu leaves Fifteen per cent …............. …............. …............. …............. Explanation. …............. …............. …............. Explanation. For the purposes of this section,- (a) “buyer” means a person who obtains in any sale, by way of auction, tender or any other mode, goods of the nature specified in the Table in subsection (1) or the right to receive any such goods but does not include- (i) a public sector company, (ii) a buyer in the further sale of such goods obtained in pursuance of such sale, or (iii) a buyer where the goods are not obtained by him by way of auction and where the sale price of such goods to be sold by the buyer is fixed by or under any State Act: (c)“Seller” means the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority or corporation or authority established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act, or any company or firm or cooperative Society.” Under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, every person, being a seller is required 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, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in that section, a sum equal to the percentage specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of such amount as income-tax. Admittedly, the goods of the nature specified in Section 206C of the Income Tax Act are sold by the petitioner-Corporation to third parties by auction. The words “buyer” and “seller” are defined in the explanation to Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. It would be pertinent to refer to the meaning of the word “seller” under the explanation. Clause (b) of the explanation would define “seller” to mean the Central Government, a State Government, any local authority or corporation or authority established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act, or any company or firm or cooperative society. As referred to, in the impugned order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, “seller” would not mean and include an individual or a HUF. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the Corporation is the second “seller” where the tribal individual from whom the petitioner-Corporation has secured the goods specified in column (2) of the table under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is the first seller. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the Corporation is the second “seller” where the tribal individual from whom the petitioner-Corporation has secured the goods specified in column (2) of the table under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is the first seller. In view of clause (b) of the explanation a “seller” means the Central Government, State Government or any local authority, company, firm or cooperative society. The Commissioner of Income Tax has, therefore, rightly held that the petitioner-Corporation could not have claimed that the tribal individual was the first seller, having sold the goods to the petitioner-Corporation and the petitioner-Corporation is the second seller, having sold the goods to the buyers in the auction. If the submission of the petitioner-Corporation is accepted, it would mean that a tribal individual, as a “seller”, would be required to collect from the petitioner-Corporation a sum equal to the percentage specified under the table, as tax collected at source. We are afraid that such is not the import of the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. There is no scope for giving second thought to the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner in view of the definition of the terms “buyer” and “seller” under the explanation under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. A finding of fact is recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax, that the tribals are engaged only as labourers to collect the forest produce that is secured by the Corporation. In any case, since a tribal individual cannot be included within the meaning of the term “seller”, the case of the petitioner that the tribal individual was the first seller and the petitioner-Corporation is the second seller and was, therefore, not liable to collect the tax at source is liable to be rejected. If the petitioner-Corporation was of the view that the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the petitioner-Corporation, the Corporation should not have collected the tax at source at 5%. Admittedly, the petitioner-Corporation had collected the tax at source from the buyers at the auction but the same was collected at a lesser percentage than that is specified in the entry in column (3) of the table. Admittedly, the petitioner-Corporation had collected the tax at source from the buyers at the auction but the same was collected at a lesser percentage than that is specified in the entry in column (3) of the table. Though the petitioner-Corporation was liable to collect tax at source at 15%, the petitioner-Corporation had collected the same at 5% only and that resulted in the imposition of interest and penalty on the petitioner-Corporation. We do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay the interest and penalty on the short fall in the collection of tax at source. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Virsa Singh and Co. (Supra) and relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In the said case the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the assessee therein being a L13 Licensee was governed by the proviso to Section 44AC of the Income Tax Act and since the assessee had purchased liquor for human consumption from the distillery as a wholesale dealer and in that transaction he was the first buyer to acquire the liquor, the assessee was not liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, if the liquor was further sold. Since we do not find any merit in the challenge to the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.