Central sales tax liability is independent of pending State refund claims, while refund applications may be considered before final assessment.

A dealer liable for Central sales tax cannot withhold payment merely because a separate refund claim under the State sales tax law is pending. The liability to remit monthly Central sales tax under the return scheme is independent of any refund right relating to declared goods sold in inter-State trade, and no provision allows deferral or set-off on that basis. The refund claim under the State law need not wait for final assessment, as the timing of disposal is left to the authority's discretion unless delay amounts to refusal to consider the application. The refund applications were therefore to be processed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners could resist payment of Central sales tax until their applications for refund of tax paid under the State law were disposed of; (ii) whether the refund applications under the State law had to await final assessment or could be considered earlier.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could resist payment of Central sales tax until their applications for refund of tax paid under the State law were disposed of.

Analysis: Liability to pay Central sales tax arises under the Central Sales Tax Act on inter-State sales, and the monthly return scheme under rule 14-A requires the dealer to submit the return and remit the full tax payable for that month at the same time. The right to refund of tax paid under the State law for declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade is a separate statutory right and does not create any legal basis for postponing the Central sales tax demand. No provision in the Central Act or the State Act permits adjustment or deferral of Central sales tax on the strength of a pending refund claim.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to withhold payment of Central sales tax pending disposal of their refund applications, and the demand was enforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund applications under the State law had to await final assessment or could be considered earlier.

Analysis: The refund rule required payment of State tax and subsequent inter-State sale of declared goods, but it did not impose a condition that refund could be examined only after completion of final assessment. The timing of disposal of refund applications was left to the discretion of the authority, and interference would be warranted only where delay amounted to a refusal to consider the claim. The record disclosed no statutory embargo on considering the refund claim before final assessment.

Conclusion: The refund applications could be considered before final assessment, and the authority was directed to dispose of the applications for the earlier periods expeditiously along with the assessments.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Central sales tax demand failed, but the refund claims under the State law were to be processed expeditiously in accordance with the authority's discretion and the direction issued by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer liable to Central sales tax cannot postpone that liability because a separate refund claim under the State law is pending, and the statutory right to refund of tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade is independent of the liability to pay Central sales tax.

---