1959 (11) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the sales tax paid by the plaintiff in each of the suits. The State of Andhra, represented by the Collector of East Godavari at Kakinada, contended that the sales tax was not refundable inasmuch as Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution did not apply to the case. It was further contended that the suits were barred by limitation as they were not filed within three years from the date of each mont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the purpose of consumption. It was not elicited in their cross-examination that the cocoanuts were not for consumption. In the plaints, it was expressly stated that the cocoanuts were sent outside the State only for the purpose of consumption. This allegation was not denied in the written statements. No attempt was made on the part of the State of Andhra to prove that any of the goods exported by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of convenience. The monthly returns are only provisionally accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. It is only after the final assessment is made under rule 13(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules that the right to claim a refund arises. It is clear on the facts of the case that the final order of assessment was made on 26th November, 1951. The suits were filed within .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X