Strict construction of taxing provisions barred levy on power-loom cloth until retrospective amendment and supported refund reconsideration.

Cloth manufactured on power-looms was not brought within the additional sales tax imposed by Act XX of 1954, because that provision, on its terms, applied only to mill cloth and could not be expanded by an executive press note; the retrospective amendment in Act III of 1956 was what extended the levy to power-loom cloth. A Commercial Tax Officer could not decline to consider a refund claim under a Government Order merely because the assessment had become final, since the Order created a duty to examine claims satisfying its conditions. Refusal to perform that duty was correctable under Article 226, and mandamus-like relief was maintainable for fresh disposal of the refund application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cloth manufactured on power-looms was liable to the additional sales tax introduced by Act XX of 1954 and later amended by Act III of 1956. (ii) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could refuse to consider the petitioner's claim for refund under the Government Order on the footing that the assessment had become final and whether writ relief could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether cloth manufactured on power-looms was liable to the additional sales tax introduced by Act XX of 1954 and later amended by Act III of 1956.

Analysis: The taxing provision in Act XX of 1954 applied to cloth made in mills and did not, on its terms, include cloth manufactured on power-looms. The executive press note could not control the construction of the statute. The later amendment by Act III of 1956 removed the mill-cloth limitation and brought power-loom cloth within the tax net with retrospective effect from 23rd August, 1954, which showed that such goods had not been covered earlier.

Conclusion: Power-loom cloth was not covered by Act XX of 1954, and the retrospective amendment in Act III of 1956 was the provision that brought it within the levy.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could refuse to consider the petitioner's claim for refund under the Government Order on the footing that the assessment had become final and whether writ relief could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Government Order created a concession to be applied where the prescribed conditions were satisfied, and the officer was entrusted with a public duty to consider and dispose of the refund claim. A refusal to act on an erroneous view of the scope of that direction was amenable to correction under Article 226. The assessment having become final did not bar consideration of the refund claim under the Government Order.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the refund claim was unsustainable, and writ relief was maintainable to require fresh disposal of the claim.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining mandamus-type relief requiring reconsideration of the refund application, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision must be construed strictly on its own terms, executive instructions cannot control its meaning, and where a public authority is directed to consider relief under a Government Order, a wrongful refusal to perform that duty is amenable to correction under Article 226.

---