JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. These petitions are arising out of the common issue regarding charging of service tax on the amount of value added tax collected by the petitioners. 1.1 As the issue is common, these petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 1.2 Rule in Special Civil Application Nos.16620 of 2022, 17011 of 2022, 19080 of 2022, 16446 of 2023 and 16515 of 2023, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Chintan Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents in these petitions. 2. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.705 of 2021 is treated as a lead matter. 3. The respondent raised a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the petitions in view of availability of the alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 3.1 The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th January, 2021, considering the decision rendered in Tax Appeal No.349 of 2016 in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. dealing with the similar issue applicable to the facts of the present case, has entertained this petition by issuing notice. 4. Brief facts of the case of Special Civil Application No.705 of 2021 are as under. (i) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having franchisee of Pizza Hut at Vadodara. (ii) The petitioner was initially carrying on business activities in the name of Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated on 05th October, 2012 and thereafter had acquired the Pizza Hut franchisee business pursuant to the scheme of demerger approved by this Court. (iii) M/s.Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) and continued to file its Returns accordingly under the provisions of the said Act. (iv) Thereafter, name of M/s.Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was changed to Sapphire Hospitality and Recreation Private Limited on 09th October, 2015. (iii) M/s.Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) and continued to file its Returns accordingly under the provisions of the said Act. (iv) Thereafter, name of M/s.Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was changed to Sapphire Hospitality and Recreation Private Limited on 09th October, 2015. (v) It is the case of the petitioner that erstwhile M/s.Dodsal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., so as to avail the option under Section 14 of the Act for making lump sum consolidated payment of the Value Added Tax (VAT), preferred an application under Section 14D of the Act, payable as Composition Tax and permission was granted on 24th November, 2014 with effect from 09th July, 2014 by the respondent authority. (vi) As per the provision of Section 14D, the petitioner is entitled to make payment of VAT at the rate of 4% instead of usual 15%, however no set-off is available on input tax credit. The dealer has to comply with the provisions of Section 14(3) and 14(4) of the Act. (vii) The respondent-State Government notified Rule No.28C of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’) which provides for procedure and conditions for lump sum payment under Section 14D of the Act. (viii) The petitioner was making regular payment under Section 14D of the Act from 2014-15 as under. Year Amount of VAT paid (Rs.) 2014-15 53,12,081/- 2015-16 73,43,964/- 2016-17 80,62,262/- 2017-18 20,73,629/- (upto June, 2017) 2018-19 GST regime (ix) On 27th March, 2019 the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax passed an ex parte order raising demand of Rs.20,12,800/- under Sections 32, 34 and 35 of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15. (x) The petitioner was also paying service tax regularly including the cess from 2014-15 to 2018-19 as under. Year Service tax amount (Rs.) 2014-15 68,21,688/- 2015-16 01,03,03,335/- 2016-17 01,23,05,402/- 2017-18 30,79,842/-(Upto June, 2017) 2018-19 GST regime (xi) With effect from 09th June, 2017 Section 14D of the Act has been repealed. (x) The petitioner was also paying service tax regularly including the cess from 2014-15 to 2018-19 as under. Year Service tax amount (Rs.) 2014-15 68,21,688/- 2015-16 01,03,03,335/- 2016-17 01,23,05,402/- 2017-18 30,79,842/-(Upto June, 2017) 2018-19 GST regime (xi) With effect from 09th June, 2017 Section 14D of the Act has been repealed. (xii) The petitioner thereafter received notice dated 14th October, 2019 from the Commercial Tax Officer-4, Vadodara to show cause as to why permission granted on 09th July, 2014 to the petitioner company to pay lump sum composition tax under Section 14D of the Act should not be revoked on the ground that the petitioner, while making payment of VAT did not take into consideration the service tax component and did not add the same in the invoice while determining the VAT to be paid by the petitioner company. (xiii) The petitioner company replied on 10th December, 2019 and 23rd January, 2020 in response to the show-cause notice contending that as per the provision of Section 2(24) of the Act, sale price would not include service tax component. However, the respondent No.2, by order dated 03rd June, 2020, set aside the permission granted to the petitioner company under Section 14D of the Act to pay consolidated lump sum amount of composition tax on the ground that VAT has not been paid on the service tax component collected by the petitioner. (xiv) It appears that the petitioner thereafter received notice dated 29th November, 2019 for issue based assessment under Section 34(8A) of the Act for the years 2014-15 and 2015- 16 for the period from 01st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 along with notice for imposing penalty on the ground that the petitioner did not file Returns and incorrect self-assessment has been made for the said period. (xv) In the aforesaid proceedings, respondent No.2 – Commercial Tax Officer, Ghatak-1 passed the assessment order on 03rd June, 2020. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.9183 of 2020 before this Court, which was allowed by order dated 17th August, 2020 by quashing and setting aside order dated 03rd June, 2020 and the respondent No.2 was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after dealing with all the issues raised by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.9183 of 2020 before this Court, which was allowed by order dated 17th August, 2020 by quashing and setting aside order dated 03rd June, 2020 and the respondent No.2 was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after dealing with all the issues raised by the petitioner. (xvi) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner filed further representation before the respondent No.2, however the same was not considered by the respondent No.2 and order dated 11th November, 2020 was passed reiterating the earlier order dated 03rd June, 2020. Subsequent to the order dated 11th November, 2020, petitioner received notice dated 01st December, 2020 issued by respondent No.3 on the basis of the said order calling upon the petitioner as to why a sum of Rs.01,23,05,402/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. should not be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved, has preferred this petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the show-cause notice dated 14th October, 2019 and the impugned order dated 11th November, 2020 passed by respondent No.2, show-cause notice dated 01st December, 2020 issued by respondent No.3. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr.S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate Ms. Dharmishta Raval for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authority could not have passed the order setting aside the permission granted to pay consolidated tax under Section 14D of the Act only on the ground that the petitioner did not pay VAT on service tax collected by it on the sake price. Dharmishta Raval for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authority could not have passed the order setting aside the permission granted to pay consolidated tax under Section 14D of the Act only on the ground that the petitioner did not pay VAT on service tax collected by it on the sake price. 5.1 It was submitted that as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, levy of service tax is to be confined to the value of service contained in the composite contract and would not cover either the meal portion in the composite contract or mere sale of food by way of pick-up or home delivery as also the goods sold at M.R.P. It was submitted that post-01st July, 2012 under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, declared services within the ambit of services which are defined under Section 65B(22) of the said Act as activity carried out by a person for another person for consideration and declared as such under Section 66E of the said Act which means that service to be covered under the purview of declared services, it must satisfy two conditions simultaneously - (i) it must be an activity carried out by one person for another person in lieu of consideration, and (ii) it must be specified (declared) under Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. It was further submitted that provision of Section 2(33) of the Act defines turnover sales and Section 2(24) of the Act defines sale price, therefore question which arise for consideration is what is includible in sales turnover. 5.2 Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra), wherein the issue regarding computing taxable turnover of purchases under Section 11(3)(b) of the Act was considered vis-a-vis taxable turnover of sales. It was submitted that the definition of taxable turnover of purchases is a mirror image of the definition of taxable turnover of sales and therefore, the ratio of judgment of this Court in the said case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the case. 5.3 It was submitted that while considering the issue of taxable turnover of purchases, what is excluded is value added tax amount and value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed by the dealer nor proposed to be granted in the assessment. 5.3 It was submitted that while considering the issue of taxable turnover of purchases, what is excluded is value added tax amount and value of purchases on which no tax credit was claimed by the dealer nor proposed to be granted in the assessment. It was held by the Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Division III, Madras v. M/s.Spencer & Co. reported in 36 STC 188 (SC), wherein it is held that amount collected by the assessee under a statutory obligation cannot be part of taxable turnover. Reference was also made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 46 STC 477 (SC), wherein it is held that where a dealer is authorised by law to pass on any tax payable by him on a transaction of sale to the purchaser, such tax does not form part of the consideration for the purpose of levy of tax on sales or purchase. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent authority was not justified in cancelling the permission for payment of composition tax under Section 14D of the Act only on the ground that petitioner did not include service tax component in its taxable turnover of sales and therefore, the impugned orders and show-cause notice are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondents submitted that there is alternative efficacious remedy available to challenge order dated 11th November, 2020 and show-cause notice dated 01st December, 2020 is yet to be adjudicated and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. It was submitted that so far as order dated 11th November, 2020 is concerned, the petitioner is required to file appeal under Section 73 of the Act. 6.1 On merits, it was submitted that while considering the entire controversy, respondent authority has looked into the relevant provisions and the final decision was taken and therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities have ignored the provisions of the Act. 6.1 On merits, it was submitted that while considering the entire controversy, respondent authority has looked into the relevant provisions and the final decision was taken and therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities have ignored the provisions of the Act. It was pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that search was carried out on 07th August, 2019 under Sections 67, 88 and 100(2)(a) of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 and during the course of the said proceedings, it was discovered by the authorities that the petitioner had paid VAT on lump sum rate on the amount charged by the petitioner on the invoice value without including component of “service tax”. It was, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner has collected service tax on the services rendered by the petitioner, however petitioner has conveniently chosen to avoid the payment of VAT at the lump sum rate on the service tax component. 6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to and relied upon the definition of “sale price” under Section 2(24) to submit that definition is required to be considered in its true perspective and strict sense as it is not in dispute that the services rendered by the petitioner would be covered in sale price and therefore, once it is to be included in the sale price, the VAT is to be paid accordingly on the considerations received for services rendered and once lump sum tax benefit is claimed by the petitioner, it was the liability of the petitioner to ensure that the tax component paid on ‘sale price’ covers the service tax component recovered by the petitioner. 6.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dave thereafter referred to Section 2(30) of the Act which deals with “taxable turnover” and Section 2(33) of the Act which deals with “turnover of sales” to submit that the petitioner was liable to pay lump sum tax at the prescribed rate under Section 14 read with Section 14D of the Act inclusive of the service tax component and as per Section 15 of the Act, the legislature has provided that it is for the dealer to show that he is not liable to pay any tax on the “sale price” and hence the petitioner has committed breach of its liability of self-assessment of the tax and accordingly the respondent authority has rightly set aside the permission granted to the petitioner under Section 14D of the Act to pay the composition tax. 6.4 It was submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that petitioner has failed to give any legitimate justification as to why tax has been collected under the service tax and if it has been collected, why VAT has not been deposited before the authority which was otherwise supposed to be deposited as per Section 14 for availing benefit of lump sum tax as per the permission granted by the respondent authority. 6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that as per the provisions of Sections 14 to 14D of the Act have now been deleted, it cannot be said that authorities have exceeded the jurisdiction while issuing the showcause notice or adjudicating the issue as far as cancellation of permission granted under Section 14 of the Act is concerned, because permission has continued even after the amendment which itself means that any question pertaining to the said benefit can always be raised and the respondents were justified in setting aside the permission which was granted to the petitioner for payment of composition tax. 6.6 Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the proceedings can always be initiated if wrong claim is made by the assessee. 6.6 Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the proceedings can always be initiated if wrong claim is made by the assessee. It was pointed out that as per the clause 18 of the Amendment Act, it makes it clear that in Section 100 of the Act which has been amended, new sub-section (2A) has been inserted by the legislature and clauses (d) and (e) of the said newly sub-section (2A) makes it clear that any action taken by the respondent authority in relation to any offence or violation committed by the dealer prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act shall not be affected and the authorities have power to initiate proceedings and are not precluded from taking any action with regard to such violation if found during the course of investigation, inquiry, verification etc. instituted pursuant to the enforcement of the Amendment Act and it cannot be said that such action of the respondent authority is without legal backing and such contentions raised by the petitioner are, therefore, not tenable. 6.7 Reliance was placed on Section 14 of the Act read with corresponding Rule 26 of the Rules to submit that permission which has been cancelled from the date when it was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and therefore, when indisputedly at no point of time the tax under the VAT Act has been paid on the service tax component, the respondent authorities have rightly cancelled the permission right from the day one when it was granted. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference may be made in the impugned order dated 11th November, 2020 as well as notice dated 01st December, 2020 issued by respondent No.3. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Anand Nainawati appearing for other petitioners adopted the submissions made by learned senior advocate Mr.S.N. Soparkar in the facts of the case which were pleaded. 7.1 In case of other petitions, the petitioner was holding master franchisee rights for international brands Domino’s Pizza’s Overseas Franchising and are also facing the same issue with regard to the VAT liability upon the service tax component not included in the total turnover of the petitioners. 7.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nainawati invited the attention of the Court to the following facts relating to the other petitions as under. “6. 7.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nainawati invited the attention of the Court to the following facts relating to the other petitions as under. “6. By the present following Special Civil Applications, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent authorities for issuance of rectification orders and Revision orders by which the demand of VAT has been confirmed on the ground that VAT is payable on “service tax” collected from the customer. Special Civil Application No. Assessment Year Date of Modification Order (Revision Order/Rectification Order) Liability of VAT on Service Tax confirmed SCA No.16446 of 2023 2013-14 06.03.2023 Amount of Rs.61,21,109/- is demanded as VAT on the service tax collected by the petitioner. Total amount demanded 1,15,06,763/-. SCA No.16515 of 2023 2014-15 06.03.2023 Amount of Rs.74,03,389/- is demanded as VAT on the service tax collected by the petitioner. Total amount demanded 1,25,57,563/-. SCA No.16620 of 2022 2015-16 25.03.2022 Amount of Rs.98,51,647/- is demanded as VAT on the service tax collected by the petitioner. SCA No.19080 of 2022 2016-17 30.03.2022 Amount of Rs.1,16,55,552/- is demanded as VAT on the service tax collected by the petitioner. SCA No.17011 of 2022 2017-18 30.03.2022 Amount of Rs.28,32,772/- is demanded as VAT on the service tax collected by the petitioner. 7. The Petitioner has stated on facts that rectification order has been challenged by them before the appellate authority out of abundant caution However, since the question is one of challenging the levy itself the Petitioners are invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Petitioner is that the element of service tax collected and paid to the Central Government under statutory obligation do not form part of 'Sale price' as defined under Section 2(24) of GVAT, as has been observed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Ambuja Cement Ltd., bearing Tax Appeal No. 349 of 2016, wherein this Hon'ble Court, relying upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Division-III, Madras vs. Spencer & Co. & Ors., 36 STC 188 (SC) & Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 46 STC 477 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where a dealer is authorized by law to pass on any tax payable by him on a transaction of sale to the purchaser, such tax does not form part of the consideration for the purposes of levy of tax on sales and purchase.” 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the short question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the liability of payment of Value Added Tax would include ‘service tax’ component collected by the petitioner from customers or not. 9. In order to answer this question, it would be germane to refer to the relevant provisions of the VAT Act, which are as under:- 2(23) “sale” means a sale of goods made within the State for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes,- … … … (h) supply of goods being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge; and the words “sell”, “buy” and “purchase” with all their grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 2(24) “sale price” means the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable to a dealer or received or receivable by a dealer for any sale of goods made including the amount of duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or the Customs Act, 1962 and any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof, and includes, - (a) in relation to – (i) the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods, (ii) the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose, whether or not for a specified period, (iii) the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof, (iv) the supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), the amount of cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration paid or payable therefor; 2(30) “taxable turnover” means the turnover of all sales of a dealer during the prescribed period in any year, which remains after deducting therefrom,- (a) the turnover of sales not subject to tax under this Act; (b) the turnover of goods declared exempt under a notification under sub-section (2) of section 5, and (c) in case of turnover of sales in relation to works contract, the charges towards labour, service and other like charges, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that in the cases where the amount of charges towards labour, service and other like charges in such contract are not ascertainable from the terms and conditions of the contract, the amount of such charges shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. 2(33) “turnover of sales” means the aggregate of the amount of sale price received or receivable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods made during a given period after deducting the amount of sale price, if any, refunded by the dealer to a purchaser, in respect of any goods purchased and returned by the purchaser within the prescribed period; 2(34) “total turnover” means aggregate of the following transactions effected by a dealer, (a) turnover of sales of goods within the State whether such sales of goods are taxable or exempt under this Act; (b) turnover of sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; (c) turnover of sales of goods in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India; (d) turnover of sales by a dealer on his own account and also on behalf of his principal; 3. Incidence of tax. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every dealer,- (i) whose total turnover during the year immediately preceding the appointed day exceeded rupees five lakhs and whose taxable turnover exceeded rupees ten thousand in a year (the aforesaid amounts of total turnover and taxable turnover are hereinafter referred to as “thresholds of turnover”), or (ii) who was registered under the earlier law or under the Central Act as on the appointed day, or (iii) whose total turnover and taxable turnover in any year first exceed the thresholds of turnover, or (iv) who is registered or liable to be registered as a dealer under this Act or under the Central Act at any time after the appointed day shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act. xxx xxx xxx 14 Option for Payment of lumpsum Tax in lieu of tax on Sales. (1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, permit any dealer, whose total turnover has not exceeded fifty lakhs in the previous year, to pay lump sum tax in lieu of the amount of tax payable under section 7 of this Act. (1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, permit any dealer, whose total turnover has not exceeded fifty lakhs in the previous year, to pay lump sum tax in lieu of the amount of tax payable under section 7 of this Act. … … … (b) The permission granted under clause (a) shall remain valid so long as the total turnover of the registered dealer does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs or the registered dealer does not undertake any of the activities mentioned in clauses (i) to (vi) of the proviso to clause (a). In case, where total turnover of a registered dealer exceeds rupees fifty lakhs or the registered dealer undertakes any of the aforesaid activities during the course of the year, he shall be liable to pay tax under sections 7 and 9 for such tax period as may be prescribed for this purpose. (2) The State Government may, fix the rate of lump sum tax by notification in the Official Gazette. (3) A dealer who is permitted under subsection (1) to pay lump sum tax shall not,- (a) be entitled to claim tax credit in respect of tax paid by him on his purchases, (b) charge any tax under this Act in his sales bill or sales invoice in respect of the sales on which lump sum tax is payable; and (c) issue tax invoice to any dealer who has purchased the goods from him. (4) A dealer who is permitted under subsection (1) to pay lump sum tax shall be liable to pay tax leviable under sub-sections (1), (3) and (6) of section 9, in addition to the lump sum tax under this section. 14D. Composition of tax on sales of eatables by hotels, restaurants, caterers, etc. (4) A dealer who is permitted under subsection (1) to pay lump sum tax shall be liable to pay tax leviable under sub-sections (1), (3) and (6) of section 9, in addition to the lump sum tax under this section. 14D. Composition of tax on sales of eatables by hotels, restaurants, caterers, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, permit a dealer who is engaged in the business of sale of eatables in any form (whether processed or unprocessed) served, delivered or given in package from the place of business of the dealer or any other place, to pay at his option in lieu of the amount of tax leviable from him under this Act in respect of sales of eatables, lump sum tax by way of composition at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette : Provided that the Commissioner shall not grant permission to pay lump sum tax to a dealer who is engaged in the activity of manufacture of such goods as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (2) The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to a dealer who is permitted under sub-section (1) to pay lump sum tax by way of compositions. (3) The permission granted under subsection (1) shall remain valid so long as the provisions of this section and rules made in this behalf are complied with; and in case of breach of any of the provisions of this section or the rules, the dealer shall be liable to pay tax under sections 7 and 9 for such tax period as may be prescribed. Rule 18 Calculation of tax.- (1) The net amount of tax payable under section 13 by a registered dealer, other than the dealer who has been granted permission to pay lump sum tax under section 14, shall be determined in Form 201. Rule 18 Calculation of tax.- (1) The net amount of tax payable under section 13 by a registered dealer, other than the dealer who has been granted permission to pay lump sum tax under section 14, shall be determined in Form 201. (2) If the amount calculated as per sub-rule (1) has a negative value - (a) the same shall be adjusted against tax liability, if any, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'central sales tax liability') for the said tax period and the remaining amount of central sales tax shall be payable; or (b) if there is no central sales tax liability or if the central sales tax liability for the said tax period is less than the said negative amount, then no tax under the Act as well as under the Central Act will be payable and the net amount, after adjusting the central sales tax liability, shall be carried forward to the next tax period of the same year or, as the case may be, the subsequent year. (3) Net tax payable by a dealer liable to pay tax but not registered under the Act for a tax period shall be equal to tax payable for the said tax period and leviable under sections 7 and 9. 10. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the petitioner is required to calculate the taxable turnover of its sales under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act by excluding the amount of turnover of sales not subjected to tax under the Act and turnover of goods declared exempt and in case of turnover of sales in case of the works contract, charges towards labours, service and other like charges and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Accordingly, VAT is payable upon the taxable turnover and as per the provision of Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Act, it provides for option for payment of lump sum tax in lieu of tax on turnover of sales. 10.1 The respondent authority while passing the impugned order dated 11th November, 2020 has taken into consideration Circular No.F No.334/3/2011-TRU dated 28th February, 2011, by which service tax is levied upon the restaurant services with effect from 01st May, 2011 on the basic amount. 10.1 The respondent authority while passing the impugned order dated 11th November, 2020 has taken into consideration Circular No.F No.334/3/2011-TRU dated 28th February, 2011, by which service tax is levied upon the restaurant services with effect from 01st May, 2011 on the basic amount. However, as per sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the Act, sale price means the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable to a dealer or received or receivable by a dealer for any sale of goods made including the amount of duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or the Customs Act, 1962 and any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof and includes- (a) in relation to - (i) the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract of property in any goods, (ii) the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose, whether or not for a specified period, (iii) the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof, (iv) the supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), the amount of cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration paid or payable therefor; (b) in relation to the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, such amount as is arrived at by deducting from the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable to a person for the execution of such works contract, the amount representing labour charges for such execution; (c) in relation to the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments, the amount of valuable consideration payable to a person for such delivery. 10.2 However, on perusal of the interpretation made by the respondent authority, whether the ‘service tax’ component collected by the petitioner could be said to be ‘sale price’ or not is answered by this Court in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra) while deciding the issue as to whether the total taxable turnover of purchases liable for purchase tax would include ‘Value Added Tax’ component or not. It is pertinent to note that definition of ‘taxable turnover of purchase’ is mirror image of definition of ‘taxable turnover of sales’ under Section 2(33). Therefore, the decision rendered by this Court on the similar issue while deciding the aspect of what is includible in the ‘taxable turnover of purchase’ would squarely be applicable in the facts of the present case to the effect that whether the ‘service tax’ component would includible as a part of the ‘taxable turnover of sales’ or not. While considering the said issue of inclusion or exclusion of ‘Value Added Tax’ in the ‘taxable turnover of purchases’, it is observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision of Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra) as under:- “5. In the backdrop of the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, the sole controversy that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether the value added tax paid on purchases made by the dealer is required to be excluded for the purpose of computing the “taxable turnover of purchases” under section 11(3)(b) of the GVAT Act. Section 11 of the GVAT Act provides for “Tax credit”. Sub-section (1)(a) thereof provides that a registered dealer who has purchased the taxable goods (purchasing dealer) shall be entitled to claim tax credit equal to the amount of tax collected from the purchasing dealer by a registered dealer from whom he has purchased such goods or the tax payable by the purchasing dealer to a registered dealer who has sold such goods to him during the tax period, or; tax paid by him during the tax period under sub-section (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 9, or; tax paid by the purchasing dealer under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. Clause (b) of subsection (1) provides that the tax credit so claimed under the sub-section shall be subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (12) and the tax credit shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. Clause (b) of subsection (1) provides that the tax credit so claimed under the sub-section shall be subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (12) and the tax credit shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 11(3)(b) of the GVAT Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the section, the amount of tax credit in respect of a dealer shall be reduced by the amount of tax calculated at the rate of four per cent on the taxable turnover of purchases within the State - (i) of taxable goods consigned or dispatched for branch transfer or to his agent outside the State, or (ii) of taxable goods which are used as raw materials in the manufacture, or in the packing of goods which are dispatched outside the State in the course of branch transfer or consignment or to his agent outside the State, (iii) of fuels used for the manufacture of goods. Thus, the amount of tax credit in respect of a dealer is required to be reduced by the amount of tax calculated at the rate of four per cent on taxable turnover of purchases within the State. The controversy involved in the present case is as regards the taxable turnover of the purchases made by the petitioner. It would, therefore, be germane to refer to the definition of “taxable turnover” as defined under section 2(30) of the GVAT Act which provides that “taxable turnover” means the turnover of all sales or purchases of a dealer during the prescribed period in any year after deducting therefrom, the matters enumerated thereunder. Sub-section (32) of section 2 defines “taxable turnover of purchases” to mean the aggregate of the amounts of purchase price paid or payable by a dealer in respect of any purchase of goods made by him during a given period after deducting the amount of purchase price, if any, refunded to the dealer by the seller in respect of any goods purchased from the seller and returned to him within the prescribed period. Thus, turnover of purchases is the aggregate of the amount of purchase price paid or payable by a dealer in respect of purchases made by him. Thus, turnover of purchases is the aggregate of the amount of purchase price paid or payable by a dealer in respect of purchases made by him. It would, therefore, be pertinent to refer to sub-section (18) of section 2 of the GVAT Act which defines “purchase price” and reads thus:- (18) “purchase price” means the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable by a person for any purchase made including the amount of duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986 or the Customs Act, 1962 and any sum charged for anything done by the seller in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof, other than the cost of insurance for transit or of installation, when such cost is separately charged and includes, - (a) in relation to - (i) the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract of property in any goods, (ii) the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof, (iii) the supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating); the amount of cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration paid or payable therefor, (b) in relation to the transfer of property in goods(whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, such amount as is arrived at by deducting from the amount of valuable consideration paid or payable by a person for the execution of such works contract, the amount representing labour charges for such execution, (c) in relation to the delivery of goods in hire purchase or any system of payment by installments, the amount of valuable consideration payable by person for such delivery. 6. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Division III, Madras v. M/s. Spencer & Co. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, in the context of section 21 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, observed that the sales tax which the section requires the seller of foreign liquor to collect from the purchaser is a tax on the purchaser and not on the seller. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, in the context of section 21 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, observed that the sales tax which the section requires the seller of foreign liquor to collect from the purchaser is a tax on the purchaser and not on the seller. Under section 21-A, the tax payable is on the price of the liquor and that tax is to be paid by the purchaser, the seller is required to collect the tax from the purchaser which he has to pay over to the Government. Section 21-A makes the seller a collector of tax for the Government and the amount collected by him as tax under this section cannot, therefore, be part of the turnover. It was submitted on behalf of the dealer that in the present case also, the value added tax paid by the purchasing dealer is collected on behalf of the Government and, therefore, has rightly been held by the Tribunal to be not part of the turnover of the respondent dealer. In Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra), the Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s Spencer & Co. (supra) and held that there was no substantial difference between section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 and section 17(iii)(b)(1) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. Whereas the levy under section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 was sales tax payable to the State Government, under section 17(iii)(b)(1) of the Adhiniyam, the levy in question was market fees payable to the market committee which was to be paid over to the Government. The court held that the levies in both the cases are statutory, although under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, it is a tax payable to the Government and under the Adhiniyam, it is a fee payable to the market committee which is a statutory body. The court, accordingly, upheld the contention of the appellant therein that market fees payable under the Adhiniyam cannot be included in the turnover of purchases. 7. Thus, what is held in the above decisions is that the amounts collected by the dealers under a statutory obligation, cannot be a part of their taxable turnover. Therefore, ordinarily, the purchase price would not include the value added tax component which the seller is under a statutory obligation to collect from the purchaser. 7. Thus, what is held in the above decisions is that the amounts collected by the dealers under a statutory obligation, cannot be a part of their taxable turnover. Therefore, ordinarily, the purchase price would not include the value added tax component which the seller is under a statutory obligation to collect from the purchaser. Nonetheless, on a plain reading of the definition of “purchase price” as defined under section 2(18) of the GVAT Act, it is clear that it is an inclusive definition. When a definition is inclusive, it may bring within its fold certain matters which ordinarily would not fall within its ambit. As can be seen from the definition of “purchase price”, it is an inclusive definition which refers to certain kinds of duties leviable under certain statutes. As a necessary corollary, therefore, it follows that had it been the intention of the legislature to include the value added tax paid on the purchase of goods, it would have formed part of the definition. Assuming that the definition of purchase price is exhaustive and would include the statutory taxes and duties, in that case, there was no necessity for including specific taxes/duties like duties under the Central Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Act. The legislative intent is, therefore, clear, that is, to include only the duties paid under the Central Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Act within the ambit of “purchase price” as defined under section 2(18) of the GVAT Act. 8. When the word “includes” is used in a definition as in the case of section 2(18) of the GVAT Act, it is clear that the legislature does not intend to restrict the definition; it makes the definition enumerative and not exhaustive, that is to say, the term defined will retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its ordinary meaning it may or may not comprise. Inclusion of the words “duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or the Customs Act, 1962” is an inherent indicator of the legislative intent to include only those duties/taxes within the purview of the expression “purchase price”. Therefore, the intention of the legislature to exclude value added tax from the ambit of purchase price is clear, as otherwise, the same would also have found place in the categories enumerated thereunder. Therefore, the intention of the legislature to exclude value added tax from the ambit of purchase price is clear, as otherwise, the same would also have found place in the categories enumerated thereunder. The Tribunal in the impugned order, on a conjoint reading of the definition of “purchase price” in sub-section (18) of section 2, turnover of purchases in sub-section (32) of section 2 of the Act and section 11 of the Act, was of the view that the tax collected under the Value Added Tax Act is not includible in the turnover of purchases, though it covers other duties as leviable under different Acts. In the opinion of this court, the view adopted by the Tribunal is in consonance with the construction of section 2(18) as discussed hereinabove. Since the interpretation of “purchase price” as defined under section 2(18) of the Act is the foundation for interpretation of the expressions “turnover of purchases” and “taxable turnover”, once it is held that the purchase price does not include the value added tax component, it follows that calculation of input tax credit under section 11(3)(b) of the GVAT Act is also required to be made by excluding the value added tax component from the total turnover of the dealer.” 11. Considering the above reasoning, when the word “includes” is used in the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act, it is clear that legislature does not intend to restrict the definition, it makes the definition enumerative and not exhaustive as held by this Court and therefore, in ordinary meaning, it has to be extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its ordinary meaning it may or may not comprise. Inclusion of the words “duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff At, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962” and any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods before the delivery thereof would indicate that the legislator intend to include only those duties/taxes within the purview of the expression “sale price”. Therefore, the intention of the legislature to exclude the service tax component from the ambit of sale price is clear, as otherwise, the same would also have found place in the categories enumerated thereunder. Therefore, the intention of the legislature to exclude the service tax component from the ambit of sale price is clear, as otherwise, the same would also have found place in the categories enumerated thereunder. 11.1 In view of above, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority setting aside the permission granted under Section 14D of the Act for payment of composition tax only on the ground that petitioners have not paid the VAT on the ‘service tax’ component which ought to have been included in the sale price is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners and on the same analogy for excluding ‘Value Added Tax’ from purchase price in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra), the petitioners are not liable to include ‘the service tax’ component as part of the ‘sales price’ so as to pay VAT thereon. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, all these petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. Show-cause notice dated 14th October, 2019 and order dated 11th November, 2020 and other similar orders passed in other petitions as enumerated hereinbelow in the table, are quashed and set aside. Sr.No. Special Civil Application Number Date of impugned show-cause notice Date of impugned order 1 705 of 2021 14.10.2019 11.11.2020 2 16620 of 2022 25.03.2022 25.03.2022 3 17011 of 2022 30.03.2022 30.03.2022 4 19080 of 2022 30.03.2022 30.03.2022 5 16446 of 2023 21.01.2019 06.03.2023 6 16515 of 2023 21.01.2019 06.03.2023 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost.