1970 (4) TMI 140 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of sales tax under Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Validity of rule 42-A prescribing the period of limitation for refund application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under both the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, purchased jute and hemp for export. The petitioner did not pay purchase tax on hemp as it was not taxable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. However, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the petitioner for tax. The petitioner sought a refund of sales tax paid beyond 12 months, which was denied due to limitation. The writ application challenged the validity of rule 42-A governing the period of limitation for refund applications under the Acts.

2. The court examined the provisions of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, and rule 42-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act allows for refund of tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade. Section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act empowers the Commissioner to refund tax on inter-State sales. Rule 42-A specifies the conditions for refund, including a 12-month limitation for submitting a refund application.

3. The court held that the word "condition" in the Acts encompasses rules like the limitation period for refund applications. Referring to a previous case, it was established that conditions include rules prescribing the manner and time for making refund applications. The court found rule 42-A, which sets a 12-month limitation, to be valid under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The application for refund, filed beyond the limitation period, was deemed barred by limitation.

4. A dissenting view from a Madras High Court case was noted but not accepted by the Orissa High Court. The court maintained that the prescribed conditions, including the limitation period, were within the scope of rules governing refund applications. Therefore, the impugned rule 42-A was upheld as valid under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.

5. The court dismissed the application for refund, citing it lacked merit and ruled out any costs. Both judges concurred with the decision to dismiss the application, upholding the validity of rule 42-A and the limitation period for refund applications under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.