Delegated refund limitation and prior payment requirement cannot be read into the unamended tax refund proviso.

A delegated rule prescribing a three-month period for refund claims under the section 4 refund proviso was invalid because the parent Act did not fix any limitation and did not authorise such a time bar. The article also states that refund under the unamended proviso did not depend on prior actual payment or collection of tax; that requirement was introduced only later by section 4-A. On that basis, refund applications filed before the amendment were entitled to be considered on merits, and rejection for limitation could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rule prescribing a three-month period for filing a refund application under the refund proviso to section 4 was valid; and (ii) whether refund under the unamended provision could be claimed only after actual payment of the tax.

Issue (i): whether the rule prescribing a three-month period for filing a refund application under the refund proviso to section 4 was valid.

Analysis: The refund proviso in section 4 provided that the tax so levied shall be refunded in the manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, but the main Act did not itself fix any period of limitation. The rule-making power was not shown to include authority to impose a time-limit for claiming refund. A limitation rule in that situation could not be sustained as a valid exercise of delegated power.

Conclusion: The limitation prescribed by the rule was invalid and not binding on the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether refund under the unamended provision could be claimed only after actual payment of the tax.

Analysis: Under the unamended proviso, the statutory language required refund of tax so levied and did not make prior collection an express condition. The later introduction of section 4-A, which referred to tax so levied and collected, showed that the requirement of collection was brought in only by the amendment and was not part of the earlier regime. The petitioner's applications were made before that amendment took effect.

Conclusion: Prior payment of the tax was not a condition for claiming refund under the unamended provision.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have the refund applications entertained on merits, and the rejection based on limitation could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule cannot impose a limitation period for claiming refund unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it, and an amended statutory requirement cannot be applied to refund claims governed by the unamended provision.

---