9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the coal so purchased by it from TISCO in the course of inter-State trade and commerce during the period August, 1982 to March, 1983 in one case and April, 1983 to March, 1984 in the other case. Central sales tax was also paid by the petitioner. The assessment, both under the Act and the C.S.T. Act, was completed by order dated 17th June, 1984 in one case and 22nd February, 1985 in the other case. The petitioner made a claim in the prescribed form for refund of the sales tax paid under the Act. This was done as, the petitioner contended, it was entitled under clause (b) of section 15 of the C.S.T. Act. By order as contained in annexure 4, the claim was rejected by respondent No. 2. The ground on which this was rejected was that as the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia, provides that every dealer, who claims refund shall furnish to the appropriate authority the statement in form XXIII (a) within three months from the date on which the movement of the goods to another State commenced in the case of a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce falling within clause (a) of section 3 of the C.S.T. Act; (b) within three months from the date on which the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods in the case of sale falling under clause (b) of section 3 of the C.S.T. Act. In this case, we are concerned with sub-rule (2)(b) only. 5.. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when section 15 of the C.S.T. Act pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions as may be provided in any law in force in that State." Since the section not only provides for prescribing manner but also condition, the State Government was empowered to impose a period of limitation as a condition within which an application for refund is to be made. On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged that since right has been given to the party for claiming refund under the C.S.T. Act, the respondents could not have taken away that right by imposing a period of limitation. 8.. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed in Munshi Abdul Rahiman and Bros. v. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli [1967] 20 STC 89, a Division Bench case of the Mysore High Court, Sri Venkateswara Groundnut Factory v. Commercial Tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such manner and subject to such condition as may be prescribed. Rules were framed prescribing limitation as a condition for making the application of refund. So far the Bihar Act is concerned, there is no such provision as is in the Sales Tax Acts of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The only provision which was brought to our notice was section 12(2) of the Act which reads as follows: "12. Rate of tax...... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this part the levy of the tax payable by a dealer under this part on sales or purchases of declared goods made by him inside Bihar shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions contained in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956)." 9.. In the case of State of Mysore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
