J.GUPTA (Judicial Member). - (1.)IN the instant case the main controversy is over the nature of waterproof cotton canvas cloth. Applicant No. 1, a partnership firm, and applicant No. 2, one of its partner, are engaged in manufacture and sale of waterproof cotton canvas cloth, cotton canvas tarpaulins, bulking sheets, etc., and are registered dealers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"). The Commercial Tax Officer while making assessment for the period of four quarters ending on October 23, 1984 (Kartick Bodi, 14th 2041) charged tax on the entire sale price of waterproof cotton canvas. According to the applicant, waterproof cotton canvas cloth being "textile fabric" within the meaning of Rule 3(28)(a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Rules") is not exigible to tax and on the said ground they (the applicants) have not collected sales tax from their purchasers. They further contended that cotton canvas cloth even after being subjected to the waterproofing process by application of wax, resin and colours does not lose its character as the cotton fabric. The applicants allege that while assessing officer has himself made mistake in calculating the measurements of the product, he has rejected the books of accounts on the plea that the applicants' calculation of the measurements of the product was erroneous. On appeal against the impugned assessment, the appellate authority, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 2) has endorsed the view of the assessing authority that "cotton canvas" and "cotton canvas waterproof" are two distinct commodities and rejected the appeal. The revision application filed before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board (in short, "the Board") was disposed of upholding the view of the assessing authority as regards the waterproof canvas cloth. According to the applicant, all processed cloths excepting "rubberised cloth" were brought within the ambit of the expression "textile fabrics" within the meaning of the Rule 3(28)(a) of the 1941 Rules. They further aver that the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and the Board have erred in holding that the sales of waterproof canvas cloth are exigible to tax and also in making measurement of such clothes. They pray for quashing the assessment order and the orders of the respondent No. 2 and the Board, and for restraining them from giving effect to such orders.
(2.)THE contention of the respondents as canvassed in the affidavit -in -opposition is that under Rule 3(28)(a) of the 1941 Rules, as it stood at the time of the impugned assessment, waterproof canvas cloth was not a "textile fabric" and hence not exempted from tax. According to them, levy of tax on sales is not dependent on collection of such tax by a dealer from his purchaser and hence the applicants cannot evade tax liability on the ground of non -collection of tax by them. They further claim that cotton canvas, the base material, having been converted into waterproof cloth, underwent a basic change and emerged as a distinct commercial commodity and that the respondent No. 3 rightly levied tax on the sales of such product. On the same ground the respondents defend the appellate order and the revisional order. Their further contentions are that the assessing authority made no mistake in calculating measurements of the waterproof cotton canvas produced by the applicants and that there is no arbitrariness in the assessment of the respondent No. 3,
The text of the affidavit -in -reply filed by the applicants is no departure from what has been asserted in the main application. In this reply the main emphasis has been laid on the interpretation of Rule 3(28)(a) with reference to the notifications which modified its text from time to time.

(3.)THE issue that falls for decision here is whether waterproof cotton canvas is covered by expression "all varieties of textile fabric" as defined in Rule 3(28)(a) of the 1941 Rules.