- (1.) IN these two cases the applicant purchased certain goods on payment of sales tax and resold them at a higher price. The learned Sales Tax Officer as well as the learned Deputy Commissioner have found that the applicant has charged a higher amount of tax from persons to whom he sold the goods he had himself purchased on payment of a lower amount of tax. They have held that the difference between the two amounts should be recovered from the applicant and that he should also pay a penalty under sec. 16 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the goods involved were liable to pay tax at the first point only, that the applicant had purchased the goods from another dealer on payment of tax, and that he was not the first point dealer. The learned counsel has further contended that what his client has charged is a price and not a tax and that his client is not liable to refund any money. We find force in these contentions. The learned Government Advocate has not been able to show that there is any provision of the law under which the applicant can be called upon to refused the difference between the price charged by him and the price that he paid on his own purchases inclusive of the tax at the first point. Again, under sec. 16 (2) it is only a Magistrate who can impose a fine for unauthorised collection of tax and this power is not vested in the assessing authority. There is also no question in this case of the alleged offence of unauthorised collection of tax having been compounded at the instance of the assessee.
(2.) IN view of these considerations we accept this application for revision in so far as the applicant is required to refund the unauthorised tax allegedly collected by him or to pay a penalty thereof. .;