KARFULE PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four petition under section 21(2) of the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as "the Motor Spirit Taxation Act"), for directing the Sales Tax Tribunal to forward to this Court statements of the case and to refer to this Court for determination the questions set out in the prayers of the petitions. The assessment years to which the petitions relate are the assessment years 1970-71, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Although the prayers in the petitions are for directing the Tribunal to refer several question to this Court for determination, before the Sales Tax Tribunal the applications were only for referring to this Court for determination of one question, and that question is as follows :

(2.) We may make it clear that we directed rule nisi to issue merely because Mr. Sequeira appeared in person on behalf of the petitioner-company and we found that, even after taking up some time, he was unable to show us the relevant provisions of law on which the claim of the petitioner was based. We have now seen the relevant provisions of law with the assistance of Mr. Jetly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also heard Mr. Sequeira at some length to leave no scope for any grievance that being a party-in-person, he was unable to explain his case properly. We had made it clear earlier to Mr. Sequeira that if he desired to have any legal assistance, we could request some lawyer conversant with sales tax law to appear amicus curiae and present the petitioner's case. Mr. Sequeira, however, made it clear that he wanted to argue the petitions himself.

(3.) We find that there is no substance in the petitions. We may state very briefly the relevant facts necessary to appreciate the dispute before us. During the aforesaid assessment years, the petitioner-company ran a petrol pump at Sprott Road, Ballard Estate, Bombay. The petitioner-company purchase motor spirit during these years from Caltex (India) Ltd. According to the petitioner-company, Caltex (India) Ltd. used to collect tax which was payable on the sale of such motor spirit by Caltex (India) Ltd. from the petitioner-company along with the cost of petrol supplied to the petitioner-company and Clatex (India) Ltd. paid to the Government of Maharashtra the tax payable under the Motor Spirit Taxation Act on the sale of motor spirit by Caltex (India) Ltd. to the petitioner. The petitioner filed returns as prescribed under the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Rules, 1958, in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. The returns were accepted, and it was held that no tax was liable to be paid under the said Act by the petitioner-company in the aforesaid assessment years. The Motor Spirit Taxation Officer also accepted the quantity of shortages shown in the returns by the petitioner-company. However, no direction was given by the Taxation Officer for the grant of any refund to the petitioner-company as sought for by the petitioner-company. It may be mentioned here that the case of the petitioner is that the motor spirit purchased by the petitioner from Caltex (India) Ltd. was stored by the petitioner in the petitioner's storage tanks. Before that motor spirit could be sold to retail consumers, a certain amount of motor spirit was lost on account of leakages and evaporation. What the petitioner-company wanted was that out of the amount collected on account of tax by Caltex (India) Ltd. from the petitioner and paid to the Government, the Government should grant to the petitioner a refund of a proportionate amount of tax calculated on the amount of motor spirit lost on account of evaporation and leakages when it was stored in the tanks of the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeals against the order of the Motor Spirit Taxation Officer rejecting the claims for refund to the Assistant Collector, Motor Spirit Sales Tax. The said appeals were dismissed. The petitioner then preferred revisional applications to the Additional Collector of Motor Spirit Sales Tax-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. These revisional applications were dismissed and the petitioner then approached the Sales Tax Tribunal by way of four revision applications. The Tribunal also rejected these revision applications and the aforestated question is sought to be raised now is in order to test the decision of the Tribunal. We find that the only relevant provision relating to refund of tax paid under the Motor Spirit Taxation Act is contained in rule 15 of the Motor Spirit Taxation Rules. The relevant portion of the said rule runs as follows :