Retrospective fiscal amendment governed refund eligibility, and a uniform refund defeated the Article 14 discrimination challenge.

Retrospective amendments to the Central sales tax law governed the refund claim, and refund became available only where the inter-State sale was effected and Central sales tax had actually been paid. As the dealer had not paid tax under the Central law on the relevant sales, the refund claim failed under the amended scheme. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the amended refund provision applied uniformly to all dealers within its scope, and the fact that some refunds had been granted before the amendment did not make the retrospective fiscal change discriminatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of tax paid under the State sales tax law after the retrospective amendments to the Central sales tax law; (ii) whether denial of refund amounted to hostile discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of tax paid under the State sales tax law after the retrospective amendments to the Central sales tax law.

Analysis: The entitlement to refund had to be tested with reference to the amended statutory scheme. By the later amendment to the Central sales tax law, refund or reimbursement became available only when the inter-State sale was effected and tax under the Central sales tax law had actually been paid. The petitioner admittedly had not paid any tax under the Central law on the relevant inter-State sales. The earlier position under the unamended law and the earlier decision of the Court stood superseded by the retrospective amendments, and the exemption provision relied on by the petitioner had no bearing on the refund condition introduced by the amended provision.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund under the amended law.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of refund amounted to hostile discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The amended refund provision applied uniformly to all dealers within its scope. The fact that some dealers had obtained refund before the retrospective amendment did not make the provision discriminatory, because the amended law governed all similarly situated dealers alike and imposed the same conditions for refund.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 14 failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory amendments deprived the petitioner of the claimed refund, and the constitutional challenge did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim is governed by a retrospective amendment, the claimant must satisfy the conditions of the amended provision, and a uniformly applicable retrospective fiscal amendment does not by itself create unconstitutional discrimination.

---