Sales tax refund requires quantified assessment; abstract liability alone cannot defeat refund after remand.

Under sales tax refund provisions, tax liability in principle is distinct from tax "payable" in law, which depends on assessment-based quantification. Where an appellate order sets aside the assessment and remands the matter for fresh disposal, and no fresh assessment order is passed after remand, the assessee's refund claim cannot be refused merely because taxable liability exists abstractly. The refund provision is triggered by the assessed amount due, not by a bare taxable event alone. On that basis, the assessee was entitled to refund of the advance tax paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a fresh assessment order after remand, the assessee was entitled to refund of the advance tax paid under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The appellate order was read as setting aside the assessment and remitting the matter for fresh disposal. The Court held that although liability to sales tax arises on the taxable event, section 33 governing refunds speaks of tax "payable", which requires an assessment-based quantification of the amount due. The distinction between liability in principle and tax payable in law was emphasised. Authorities relied on by the Revenue on the independent existence of tax liability were distinguished because they did not concern refund claims under a provision like section 33. On the facts, no fresh assessment order had been passed after remand.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the entire advance tax paid, and the claim could not be denied merely on the basis of abstract tax liability without a quantified assessment.

---