1960 (2) TMI 48 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund denied for pre-1950 tax transactions; partial relief granted for post-1950 tax.

The State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) Versus Sri Krishna Cocoanut Company

The State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) Versus Sri Krishna Cocoanut Company - [1961] 12 STC 294 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the sales tax levied on inter-State sales by the plaintiff-firm.2. Validity of the composite order of assessment dated 16th October, 1950.3. Plaintiff's entitlement to a refund of the tax paid.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decisions regarding composite orders and refunds.5. Distinction between claims for refund of tax and direct challenges to assessment orders.6. Limitation period for claims of refund.Analysis:1. Legality of the Sales Tax Levied on Inter-State Sales:The plaintiff-firm, engaged in exporting coconuts and copra outside the Madras State, was assessed for sales tax for the period from 1st April 1949 to 31st March 1950. The transactions were admitted to be inter-State sales. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, determined the net turnover and issued an order on 16th October 1950, demanding Rs. 13,948-6-9. The plaintiff later argued that the tax was illegally levied, particularly after 26th January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, rendering the tax levy contrary to Article 286(1)(a) and its Explanation.2. Validity of the Composite Order of Assessment:The plaintiff contended that the order of assessment was a composite one and could not be split into valid and invalid parts. The argument was that the entire order should be set aside, even though the invalid portion could be easily determined. The court rejected this argument, stating that such a proposition would lead to undesirable consequences and was not supported by logical necessity or compelling authority.3. Plaintiff's Entitlement to a Refund:The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a refund only for the portion of the tax levied illegally, i.e., for transactions after 26th January 1950. The plaintiff's argument for a full refund based on the composite nature of the assessment order was not accepted. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must precisely allege and prove the amount paid under mistake or coercion.4. Applicability of Supreme Court's Decisions:The court examined two decisions of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff relied upon, which dealt with composite orders and refunds. The court found that these decisions did not apply to the present case because they involved direct challenges to assessment orders rather than claims for refunds. The Supreme Court's decision in Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf clarified that claims for refund fall under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, focusing on mistaken payment or coercive collection, not the validity of the assessment order.5. Distinction Between Claims for Refund and Challenges to Assessment Orders:The court highlighted a vital distinction between claims for refund and direct challenges to assessment orders. In claims for refund, the cause of action is the payment or collection of the tax, whereas in challenges to assessment orders, the cause of action is the improper order itself. This distinction was crucial in determining the plaintiff's entitlement to a refund.6. Limitation Period for Claims of Refund:The court noted that the plaintiff did not plead mistake as the basis for the refund, which could have implications for the limitation period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act. Payments made before 16th October 1950, under provisional assessment orders, could be time-barred. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must establish the exact amount paid in excess, and any claim for amounts paid before the final assessment order might be barred by time.Conclusion:The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund for the tax relating to transactions before 26th January 1950. The plaintiff was only entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,079-14-0, representing the tax illegally levied after 26th January 1950. The trial court's decree was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.Appeal Partly Allowed.