ADDL COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Vs. BADRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Special Appeals (D. B. Civil Special Appeals No. 189 and 190 of 1995) are directed against the judgments dated 11. 1. 1995 and 10. 1. 1995 respectively of the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby while allowing the writ petitions, the learned single Judge has quashed the Circular Annexure-1 dated 4. 8. 1994 and the notice Annexure-2 dated 9. 8. 1994 and has further held that refund under r. 38-D of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') read with s. 23-BB of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 can be granted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer' (for short 'the ACTO') because the term 'commercial Taxes Officer' (hereinafter to be referred as 'the CTO') is inclusive of the ACTO.

(2.) FOR deciding the controversy involved in this case, we need not go into the facts of these cases. What is contended before us by the learned Advocate General is that refund under r. 38-D of the Rules read with s. 23-BB of the Act can be granted only by the CTO of the concerned circle and not by the ACTO of the concerned circle. He has contended that refund under r. 38-D of the Rules can be granted to two types of dealers : one who is a registered dealer and the other "who is not a registered dealer. He has submitted that r. 38-D of the Rules specially lays down that any person or dealer claiming refund under s. 23-BB of the Act in the case of his being not a registered dealer shall apply to the Commercial Taxes Officer of the area in whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides and in the case of his being a registered dealer, shall apply to the C. T. O. in whose circle he is registered, for refund and such Commercial Taxes Officer after making such enquiry as he deems proper shall allow the refund by issuing a refund voucher in form ST 13. According to Mr. Agarwal, if before a C. T. O. , in whose circle, the dealer has been registered, an application for refund is being made, that refund can of course be granted by the ACTO but it is a case of an unregistered dealer, whose place of business is unknown or may vary and, therefore, such dealer can claim his refund for the excess amount paid by him by making an application in FORm ST-13 before the CTO of the area where he ordinarily resides and, therefore, refund to an unregistered dealer cannot be granted by the ACTO.

(3.) IN view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are firmly of the view that these two appeals have no force and they are hereby dismissed summarily. .