Refund of wrongly collected sales tax survives assessment finality, but only if filed within the refund limitation period.

An independent statutory refund right was recognised for sales tax paid on inter-State sales where tax was not legally due, and finality of the original assessment did not by itself defeat refund under the Act or restrict writ jurisdiction. The refund claim still had to satisfy the limitation in the proviso to section 14, measured from the relevant assessment or later appellate-type order, whichever was later. On that basis, claims filed within time were allowed, while claims based on earlier inter-State sales assessments were held time-barred and were not revived by a later re-assessment confined to local sales.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dealer could seek refund of sales tax paid on inter-State sales merely because the assessment had become final and had not been challenged in appeal or revision. (ii) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the proviso to section 14, including the effect of re-assessment under section 12(7).

Issue (i): Whether a dealer could seek refund of sales tax paid on inter-State sales merely because the assessment had become final and had not been challenged in appeal or revision.

Analysis: Section 14 created an independent right to refund where tax had been paid in excess of what was due, subject only to the limitation in its proviso. Section 22, which gave finality to assessments and restricted challenges under the Act, did not control the refund provision and could not curtail the jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court treated the later declaration of law on Article 286(1) as governing the legal position from the constitutional commencement, so that tax collected on transactions not legally taxable remained refundable unless barred by limitation. The absence in section 14 of any express bar comparable to section 48(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 supported this construction.

Conclusion: The claim to refund was maintainable in principle and was not defeated merely because the assessment had become final.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the proviso to section 14, including the effect of re-assessment under section 12(7).

Analysis: The proviso to section 14 required the refund claim to be made within twenty-four months from the relevant assessment order or within twelve months of the final appellate, revisional, review, or reference order, whichever was later. The claims in three matters were within time and therefore succeeded. In the remaining two matters, the original assessments on inter-State sales were outside the limitation period, and the later re-assessment related only to local sales. The Court treated the original assessment and the re-assessment as distinct for limitation purposes and held that the later re-assessment could not extend time for refund of tax referable to the earlier inter-State sales assessment.

Conclusion: The refund claims in three matters were within limitation, while the other two were time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The statutory refund remedy was available for tax not legally due, but only to the extent the claims were filed within the prescribed limitation period; accordingly, relief was granted only for the timely claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal refund provision creates an independent right to recover tax paid in excess of the amount legally due, finality of the original assessment does not bar refund unless the statute expressly so provides, and the claim must still satisfy the limitation prescribed in that refund provision.

---