9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich a single point tax is levied under section 5(4) of the Act. The assessee's turnovers as second purchaser with which we are concerned were as follows: Year Turnover as second purchaser -1963-64 Rs. 4,60,180.94 1964-65 Rs. 3,11,183.41 1965-66 Rs. 2,42,442.67 The assessee claimed that it is entitled to refund of sales tax paid under the Act on all gingerly seeds sold by it in the course of interState sale. The claim was made as per the provisions of the proviso to section 5(4) of the Act read with rule 39-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, hereinafter called the Rules. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim refund on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax and that under rule 39-A the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and collected under the State law on declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax so paid shall be refunded; the person to whom the refund shall be made is left to be provided by the State sales tax law. It is obligatory on the State to make provision for refund of tax levied on declared goods which are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The State law can only provide as to who is the person to whom the tax amount shall be refunded. The law cannot say that the tax so levied shall not be refunded at all. To give effect to the provisions of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Act has made provisions in the first proviso to section 5(4) of the Act as follows: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) Tax should have been collected under the Act on declared goods; and (2) the said goods should be sold in inter-State sales. If these facts are proved, the refund shall be made to the dealer who has made the inter-State sales. The law does not lay down a further condition that the dealer who has made the inter-State sales should have paid the tax under the Act. The petitioner's claims for refund were rejected on the sole ground that the tax had been collected from the first purchasers and not from the petitioner who was the second purchaser in the State. The petitioner having satisfied the two conditions referred to above, was entitled to the refund of tax collected under the Act. The sales tax authorities were therefore not right in reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
