Composite sale price cannot be treated as illegal tax collection where no separate tax was recovered from buyers.

Section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act applies only where a dealer actually collects an amount by way of tax, or purports to do so, in breach of section 22(2) or 22(3). Where the bills show only a composite sale price and no separate recovery of turnover tax, purchase tax, or surcharge from buyers, an embedded amount forming part of the pricing structure cannot be recharacterised as illegal tax collection. On those facts, the assessing authority cannot go behind the invoice price to dissect the components and order forfeiture, especially where the amount was paid into the Oil Pool Account and no unlawful enrichment by the dealer was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether amounts embedded in the sale price of petroleum products, described as "State surcharge", could be treated as sums collected by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax so as to attract forfeiture under section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and whether the assessing authority could go behind the sale bills to dissect the price structure and direct forfeiture.

Analysis: Section 46A applies only where a dealer collects a sum by way of tax, or purporting to be by way of tax, in contravention of section 22(2) or section 22(3). The Court noted that the petitioners' bills did not show any separate collection of turnover tax, purchase tax, or surcharge from the buyers. The sale price alone was charged, and the amount described as "State surcharge" formed part of the pricing mechanism fixed under Central Government directions and had been paid over to the Oil Pool Account. On those facts, there was no retention of any amount by the petitioners and no enrichment by unlawful collection. The assessing authority was therefore not justified in going behind the invoice price and recharacterising a component of the sale price as illegal collection of tax. The statutory bar under section 22(2) is attracted only when there is an actual collection by way of tax contrary to the Act, not where the dealer merely fixes a sale price which includes business liabilities within the total consideration.

Conclusion: Section 46A was inapplicable on the facts, and the forfeiture orders could not be sustained. The issue was decided in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture under section 46A can be ordered only when a dealer actually collects a sum by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax in contravention of section 22(2) or section 22(3); an amount embedded in the declared sale price and not separately realised as tax cannot be treated as illegally collected tax merely because the authority dissects the pricing structure.

---