1991 (3) TMI 352 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding levy of tax on inter-State sale of dressed hides and skins.
2. Interpretation of Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
3. Eligibility for reimbursement or refund of tax paid on inter-State sale.
4. Failure to file a claim for reimbursement and condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a dealer in hides and skins, contested the imposition of tax on the inter-State sale of dressed hides and skins, arguing that the commodity had already been taxed as raw hides and skins. However, the Court held that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are distinct articles of merchandise, as established in previous judgments. Therefore, the petitioner's argument was not accepted, and the tax assessment was upheld.

2. The petitioner's counsel referred to Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which deal with the reimbursement of tax paid in certain cases. These sections impose restrictions and conditions on the tax levied on the sale or purchase of declared goods within a state, as well as provide for reimbursement of tax paid on inter-State sales. The Court analyzed these provisions in detail to determine their applicability to the petitioner's case.

3. Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act allows for reimbursement or refund of tax paid on inter-State sales of declared goods. The petitioner could seek reimbursement based on the argument that tax was levied on their inter-State sale, and thus, the tax paid should be refunded. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to file a claim for reimbursement in the prescribed manner as required by rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to file a claim hindered their eligibility for reimbursement.

4. The Court considered the petitioner's argument that they did not file a claim for reimbursement due to contesting the imposition of tax. The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the claim based on a provision in rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. However, the Court clarified that since there was no formal claim before them, they could not rule on the condonation of delay. The Court advised that if the petitioner files a claim, the assessing authority must consider it, especially since the final assessment is subject to appeal and revision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the tax cases due to the lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of following prescribed procedures for seeking reimbursement of tax paid on inter-State sales and highlighting the necessity of filing formal claims in a timely manner.