Refund claims may be filed after assessment within time, and defective form does not defeat a clearly stated refund basis.

A refund claim under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act may be filed after assessment, so long as it is made within the statutory limitation period fixed by reference to the assessment order. The provision does not require the claim to be lodged before assessment, and a post-assessment claim cannot be rejected on that basis alone. Non-use of Form XIX under rule 35 is only an irregularity where the application otherwise clearly discloses the ground for refund. The defect in form does not defeat the claim, and the refund application must be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a claim for refund under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 had to be made before the assessment order was passed, and whether a claim made after assessment within the prescribed period was maintainable; (ii) whether non-use of Form XIX prescribed under rule 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1946 was fatal to the refund application.

Issue (i): whether a claim for refund under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 had to be made before the assessment order was passed, and whether a claim made after assessment within the prescribed period was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 13 fixed the limitation for a refund claim by reference to the date of the assessment order and did not require the claim to be lodged before assessment. The language of the provision contemplated refund claims being made after assessment, and the fact that the assessment had already been completed did not extinguish a claim filed within the statutory period. The adverse view that the dealer must necessarily claim refund at the assessment stage was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claims made after assessment but within time were valid and had to be examined on merits.

Issue (ii): whether non-use of Form XIX prescribed under rule 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1946 was fatal to the refund application.

Analysis: Rule 35 required the prescribed form to specify the ground of refund, but the omission to use that form was only an irregularity where the application otherwise clearly stated the basis of the claim. Since the essential ground for refund was disclosed, the application could not be rejected merely for defect of form. A rejection on that ground would itself require a proper order and would be open to challenge in appeal.

Conclusion: The defect in form was not fatal and did not bar inquiry into the refund claim.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing to consider the refund claims were set aside, and the refund applications were directed to be decided afresh by the Sales Tax Officer in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under section 13 may be made after assessment within the statutory period, and failure to use the prescribed form does not defeat the claim where the ground for refund is clearly stated.

---