9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 8(5) of the Central Act in G.O. Ms. No. 1094, Revenue, dated 14th July, 1964, exempting inter-State sales from taxation under the Central Act where tax was levied on purchases under the State Act on the dealer giving an undertaking not to claim refund of the said tax. Rule 27-A was introduced in the State Rules made under the State Act prescribing certain conditions and timelimit for filing applications for refund under section 15(b) of the Central Act. For the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, the petitioner was taxed on the turnover of purchases of the said goods made within the State under the State Act. The same goods were sold by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to dealers in the State of Madras. The petitioner had been filing undertakings in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 1094 and suffering tax under the State Act in respect of such purchases within the State and claiming exemption from taxation under the Central Act on the inter-State sales of the said goods. While so, the Supreme Court held in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons(1), that any exemption given under the State law or the point det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 15(b) of the Central Act read with section 6 of the State Act, right to refund arose the moment the goods purchased by a tanner or the last purchaser within the State were sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and no further conditions were imposed by section 15(b) for claiming refund, and (5) That the respondents therein should entertain the applications filed by the dealers under rule 27-A for refund of the tax levied under the State law and dispose of the same in accordance with law." As a result of the statutory provisions then in force as interpreted by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.)., and this court in Rafeeq Ahmed Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 430., the tanner and the last purchaser of raw hides and skins within the State who sold the said goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce was not liable to be taxed on his turnover of inter-State sales under the Central Act and yet he could claim refund of the tax levied under the State Act on the purchases within the State. Taking advantage of the said legal position, the petitioners filed applications for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore any authority for the refund of any such tax; and (c) no court shall enforce any decree or order directing the refund of any such tax. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing any person- (a) from questioning in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, any assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of tax referred to in sub-section (1), or (b) from claiming refund of any tax paid by him in excess of the amount due from him by way of tax under the principal Act as amended by this Act. 10.. Exemption from liability to pay tax in certain cases.-(1) Where any sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of November, 1964, and the 9th day of June, 1969, and the dealer effecting such sale has not collected any tax under the principal Act on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnover relating to such sale and no such tax could have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal Act by this Act ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce' shall be substituted." By this amendment made to section 15(b), a dealer can claim refund only if he satisfies two conditions, viz., that the goods should not only have been sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, but also tax must have been paid on such sales under the Central Act. The previous decision of this court in Rafeeq Ahmed Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 430., based on the language of the unamended section 15(b) of the Central Act, stands superseded by this amendment. Unless the dealer satisfies both the conditions laid down by the amended section 15(b), he cannot claim reimbursement of the tax levied under the State Act on the purchases of the said goods within the State. Appropriate amendments have been made to section 6 of the State Act by section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (4 of 1974), bringing in conformity with the Central amendment of section 15(b). The petitioner filed applications under rule 27-A of the State Rules on 22nd November, 1969, for refund of the tax collected under the State Act for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1967-68, i.e., a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for refund under section 15(b) of the Central Act as amended by Act No. 61 of 1972. The claim for refund under section 15(b) has to be determined solely with reference to the provisions of section 15(b) as amended. As we have held that the petitioner has not admittedly paid any tax in respect of inter-State sales under the Central law, he will not be entitled to claim refund of the tax. Next, it is contended by Sri Sundara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that large number of dealers, who were similarly placed like the petitioner, had obtained refund of the tax prior to the amendment of section 15(b) by Central Amendment Act No. 61 of 1972 and that if the petitioner is to be denied the relief of refund, it would amount an invidious discrimination offending article 14 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this submission. Section 15(b), as amended, does not make any distinction between any dealer and dealer and it has uniform application. The fact that some of the dealers' applications were disposed of earlier and refund ordered, would not make the provisions of section 15(b), as amended by Act No. 61 of 1972, discriminatory. Now, that section 15(b) of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
