A.PASAYAT, J. - (1.)AT the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been REFERRED TO this Court under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal" ).
" Whether the sales Tax Tribunal is correct hold that filing of 'c' form amply proves that tax component has been included in the sale price even though not shown separately in the bills and the accounts and therefore the dealer-assessee is entitled for the deduction from the turnover as provided under sub-section (1) of section 8-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?"

(2.)BACKGROUND facts as indicated by the Tribunal in the statement of facts drawn are as follows : For the assessment year 1981 - 82 M/s. Ghewarchand Kamal Kumar (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "the assessee") filed its returns as required under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short "the Central Act") and the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (in short "the Central Rules" ). The Sales Tax Officer being of the course of inter-State trade, treated the gross turnover of Rs. 52,23,001. 60 to be the net turnover for purpose of tax. Since a sum of Rs. 51,94,763. 60 was covered by valid declaration forms, the same was taxed at 4 per cent. , and the balance sum of Rs. 28,248 was subjected to tax at 8 per cent. Accordingly, a tax demand of Rs. 2,10,050 was raised. The petitioner assailed the assessment in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack. Amongst other grounds it was urged that the assessing officer should have allowed proper deduction in terms of section 8-A of the Central Act. The appellate authority found that the sales memos and sales account did not indicate price included amount of sales tax and therefore, no relief was available to the assessee-appellant. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. Reference was made under section 8-A by the assessee to contend that turnover as defined in section 2 (j) of the Central Act means the aggregate of the sale prices. As the entire amount of consideration including the sales tax sale prices. As the entire amount of consideration including the sales tax component which the purchaser pays constitutes the sale price of goods, levy of tax on such amount will be a levy on the amount of the tax itself, which is prohibited under the law. The stand of the Revenue on the contrary, was that there Central sales tax is shown to have separately collected and forms part of the aggregate of the sale price, section 8-A has application. Since the assessee failed to prove that the turnover included Central sales tax, there was no scope for interference. The Tribunal came to hold that since the assessee had obtained "c" forms from the purchasing registered dealers against his sales in the course of inter-State trade, it was obvious that the dealer-assessee had charged the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. on such sales, although not shown separately in the bills or accounts. It was held that the amount was inclusive of the sales tax component and filing of "c" form amply proved that the sales tax component has been included in the turnover of sales and formed part of the sale price, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction as provided in section 8-A of the Central Act. The matter was remitted to the assessing officer to redetermine the turnover in the light of the observations made. At the instance of the Revenue, the question as REFERRED TO above has been REFERRED TO this Court.
The stand of the Revenue in essence, in essence, is that section 8-A has no application where the assessee has not led evidence to show that any tax component part of the sale price. The onus lies on the assessee to show that there was such inclusion. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that by providing the deduction in section 8-A (1) benefit was extended to the dealers who had not separately charged sales tax and therefore, the formula was prescribed to arrive at the deduction. According to learned counsel for the assessee deduction is not available where dealer had claimed deduction for Central sales tax collected by him separately.

(3.)FOR resolution of the dispute, it is relevant to refer to section 8-A of the Central Act. This section was inserted with retrospective effect by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969. The object and reasons for making addition in the Act was stated in the following words :
" This clause seeks to insert with retrospective effect a new section 8-A in the principal Act. New section 8-A provides for the deductions which should be allowed in determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of the Act. The deductions provided in rule 11 (2) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, as amended from time to time, regarding the tax element and the goods returned to a dealer, have been incorporated in the Section. To cover contingencies which may arise in further, power is also being taken to prescribe other deductions having regard to the prevalent market conditions, facility of trade and interests of consumers. "
In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1958] 9 STC 267 (SC), AIR 1958 SC 452, it was held that the sale price for purposes of calculation of taxable turnover of a dealer includes the sales tax. The effect of this view has been that even though a dealer charged sales tax on all his sales, he had still to pay as sales tax from his own pocket. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8-A prescribes a formula deduction of turnover of a dealer for the purpose of the Act to do away with this difficulty of the dealers. The principle underlying the formula is that no tax should be levied on the amount of tax itself. The manner of deduction as provided is very simple. The dealer is entitled to keep a separate account of inter-State sales tax collected by him on the sales. If he does so, he is entitled to deduct the total amount of sales tax from the aggregate of "sale prices" which included that total tax amount. But if the dealer fails to keep a separate account of inter-State sales tax collected by him, the formula given in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8-A will have to be applied to fulfil the object. Section 8-A (1) (a) reproduces the formula which is identical to that earlier prescribed under rule 11 (2 ). For the purpose of separating or deducting, as it may be called, the Central sales tax component from the aggregate sale price, in cases where the Central sales tax is not otherwise deducted, the section provides for the deduction to be made in accordance with the formula. The proviso makes it clear that the above formula shall not apply if the amount collected by way of Central sales tax has been otherwise deducted from the aggregate sale price does not include Central sales tax. The application of the formula may be explained by following the illustration. As the heading of section 8-A and the language used therein clearly reflect, the manner of determination of turnover of a dealer is prescribed therein. While making such determination, deduction are to be made from the aggregate of sale prices. "turnover" has been defined in section 2 (j) of the Central Act to mean the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by a dealer in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any period and determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. The manner of determination of inter-State turnover of a dealer is indicated in section 8-A. The expression "sale price" has been defined in section 2 (h ). "price" is the amount of consideration which a seller charges the buyer for parting with the title to the goods. The entire amount of consideration including sales tax component which purchaser pays therefore constitutes price of goods. In Paprika Ltd. v. Board of Trade [1944] 1 All ER 372 it was observed by Lawrence, J. , that whenever a sale attracts purchase tax, the tax presumably affects the price which the seller who is liable to pay the tax demands but it does not cease to be the price which the buyer has to pay even if the price is expressed X plus purchase tax. The same view was expressed in Love v. Norman Wright (Builders) Ltd. [1944] 1 ALL ER 618. Goddard, L. J. , observed that where an article is taxed, whether by purchase tax, customs duty or excise duty, the tax becomes part of the price which ordinary the buyer will have to pay. So, if a seller offers goods for sale, it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer. If the buyer agrees to the price, it is not for him to consider how it is made up or whether the seller has included tax or not. In George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1961] 12 STC 476 (SC), it was observed that under the definition of "turnover" the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold is taxable. This aggregate amount includes the tax as a part of the price paid by the buyer.