to verious dealersand also PaklRs.2,47,328-00 the saleseffectedbYhim along with monthly A2 retums. Hestates furtherin the reply that thus the totalpaymentmade bY if onboth the counts i.e., on M retums @mesto purchase and Rs. 7,64,561-00 whereas hecollectedonlY Rs.5,54,774-00resultingin the short collection of Rs.2,09,787-00.But, thedeputyCommissioner faited to referand considerto this ples raisedbY the appellantin his replyto theshow causenotices and enoneouslYtook into accountonly whatis payable by the apPellanton the sale of refinedoil madebY him i.e.,Rs. 2,42,19940.Thus,he completelyignoredprovisionsof Sec. 308 (2) of APGST Actwhichprovidesfortaking into account the tax alreadYpaid by the dealerat that time of purchase and enoneouslYheld thatthe appellant collected excesstax than whathe is liable to PaY. A reading ofSec, 308(2)indicatesthat the dealer is to collectnot onlY sales taxpayablebY him on the sales madebY him but alsothe tax alreadY paid by him at the timeof Purchase. Thus, the facts and circumstancesof the presentcase show that the appellanthasnot collected tax fromthe customers onthesales of refinedoil anything execss thanwhat heis entitled to collect and what he has collectedisnot excesstax as Per Sec. Act. Thus,we cometo the 3o(B(2) ofAPGST conclusion thatthe DePutYCommissioner erredin holding thatthe appellantcollected excess tax of forfeited thesame. Rs.3,12,655-00and ure hold thatthe imPugnedorder of revision madebY the DePutYCommissioneris not proper and valid andthe sameis liableto be set- aside"
