S.S. Kang, J. - (1.) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities were justified in disallowing the double taxation relief to the tune of Rs. 4626.74 paise for the purchases made after payment of tax Aforesaid is the question referred to us by the Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab under section 22(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail It will suffice to mention that the firm under the name and style of M/s. Som Nath and Amar Nath was granted L-2 Licence for" sale of Indian made Foreign liquor at Patiala during the year 1971-72. The firm was registered under the Act on 20:h August, 1971, with liability to pay .tax w e f. 23rd May, 1971. The L-2 licence granted to this firm was cancelled by the Department w.e.f 3rd September, 1971, whereafter the vend was re-auctioned and was taken over by the applicant-firm w.e.f. 11th September, 1971. The applicant firm has filed its return for the period 11th September, 1971 to 30th September, 1971 and the tax amounting to Rs. 2431.82 paise was deposited. The Assessing Authority framed assessment on the best judgment basis on a turnover of Rs. 4,80,000/-. The appeal filed by the assessee to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala met with partial success and that is not relevant for our purpose The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. He, inter alia, made a claim for rebate amounting to Rs. 4626.74 paise for the period i3th September, 1971 to If 16th October, 1971 but the same was turned down on the ground that the dealer had applied for amendment of registration certificate on 13th October, 1971 and the amendment was allowed on 29th October, 1971. The claim for rebate was turned down solely on the ground that the rebate was inadmissible under rule 29 (x) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949.
(2.) It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased liquor from the Distillery and had paid the tax. In turn he sold that liquor to the customers and that the petitioner was not liable to pay sales tax on this liquor on which he had already paid tax once. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Govindan and Co. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 35 STC 50 and Fitwell Engineers v. Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration, Delhi and another, (1975) 35 STC 66, wherein the relief regarding double taxation had been granted.
(3.) We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal dated 10th April, 1978. The only point raised before the Tribunal was that the excise and Taxation Commissioner was wrong when he declined the rebate holding the same to be inadmissible under rule 29(x) of the Rules The point as argued now was not raised before the Tribunal. The question of double taxation was not argued there and there is no mention about that in the order. It is well settled that only those questions can be referred to for advisory opinion of this court under section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act which arise out of the order of Tribunal. Since the question referred to us does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal we decline to answer the same. Orders accordingly.;