Refund limitation does not control statutory adjustment of excess tax against later outstanding dues under section 29.

Section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treats refund claims and adjustment of refundable amounts as distinct statutory mechanisms. The first proviso prescribes a limitation period for making a refund application, but the second proviso separately obliges the assessing authority to adjust any refundable amount against the dealer's outstanding tax, penalty, or fee. The time bar attached to the refund claim cannot be extended to control this independent adjustment duty. Accordingly, limitation for refund does not govern a request for adjustment against subsequent outstanding dues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation period prescribed for an application for refund under section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act also governs a request for adjustment of the refundable amount against the dealer's outstanding tax liability for subsequent years.

Analysis: Section 29 creates a summary remedy for refund of tax paid in excess of the true liability. The first proviso fixes the period within which a claim for refund must be made. The second proviso, however, imposes a distinct obligation on the assessing authority to apply any amount found refundable towards outstanding tax, penalty, or fee due from the dealer. The right to seek refund and the statutory duty to adjust against existing dues are separate matters. The time limit attached to the refund claim cannot be extended to control the independent adjustment obligation under the second proviso.

Conclusion: The limitation period for refund does not govern an application for adjustment against subsequent outstanding dues. The question was answered in the negative.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time bar attached to a refund application cannot be imported into a separate statutory obligation to adjust refundable amounts against outstanding liabilities where the two remedies are distinct.

---