Refund mandate under the Central Sales Tax Act overrides exemption conditions, and validating amendments do not cure later inconsistent assessments.

A notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 cannot deny Central sales tax on declared goods by making exemption conditional on non-claim of the refund mandated by section 15(b); the refund scheme under sections 14 and 15 prevails and the notification is invalid to that extent. The validating provision in section 15(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972 protects only acts, proceedings and collections already covered by its temporal scope, and does not retrospectively legalise inconsistent assessments completed after 1 April 1973. On that basis, the notification remained inconsistent with the Central Act and the validating amendment did not save the assessments in question.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, could validly deny Central sales tax on declared goods on the basis that State purchase tax had been levied and collected and refund under section 15(b) would not be claimed. (ii) Whether section 15(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972 validated the notification so as to prevent reopening of assessments for earlier years.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, could validly deny Central sales tax on declared goods on the basis that State purchase tax had been levied and collected and refund under section 15(b) would not be claimed.

Analysis: The notification was tested against the scheme of sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 15(b) requires refund of State tax once declared goods are sold in inter-State trade or commerce and taxed under the Central Act. A notification under section 8(5) cannot override that mandate by converting the statutory refund scheme into a condition for exemption from Central sales tax. The earlier decision holding the notification inconsistent with the Central Act was treated as a final adjudication on the point.

Conclusion: The notification was not valid to the extent it ran counter to section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether section 15(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972 validated the notification so as to prevent reopening of assessments for earlier years.

Analysis: The validating provision protected assessment-related acts, proceedings, and collections already made under the principal Act before the commencement of the amendment, but it did not confer prospective approval on actions taken after 1 April 1973 if they were inconsistent with the Central Act. The assessments in question were completed after the amendment came into force, so the petitioner could not rely on the validating clause to bar reopening on the basis of the notification.

Conclusion: The validating amendment did not save the notification for the assessments in question.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment and reopening notice failed because the notification remained inconsistent with the Central Act and the validating amendment did not assist the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 cannot override the refund mandate in section 15(b), and a validating amendment protects only those acts that fall within its temporal and substantive scope.

---