SHIVARATAN INDERCHAND MUNDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. His business consists in purchase of jute and hemp and his place of business is Berhampur. The petitioner purchases jute from cultivators and exports them to places outside Orissa. Jute and hemp are declared commodities under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner did not pay purchase tax on hemp inasmuch as it was a commodity not taxable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner was, however, assessed to tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Berhampur. His appeal against the levy of purchase tax on hemp was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, with an observation that if purchase tax had been paid under the Central Sales Tax Act he was entitled to get a refund of the tax paid under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner filed an application for refund of the sales tax, but as the same was filed beyond 12 months of the payment of the Central sales tax, the sales tax authorities held that the application was barred by limitation. The writ application has been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging that rule 42-A prescribing the period of limitation is ultra vires.

(2.) TO appreciate this contention it is necessary to examine the provisions of section 15 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and rule 42-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. Section 15 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 -

(3.) RELIANCE was placed by Mr. Roy on Tirumurthi Chettiar v. State of Madras and Another ([1968] 21 S. T. C. 489), a single Judge decision of the Madras High Court, where, on similar language, a different view was taken. For reasons already discussed, we are unable to accept the Madras view as laying down the correct law.