Refund of State tax on declared goods requires strict statutory compliance; delegated rules cannot override parent Acts, and discrimination claim failed.

Refund of State tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade depends on strict compliance with the statutory conditions in the State Act and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act; an unamended delegated rule cannot enlarge that entitlement or override the parent statutes, so refund is unavailable where those conditions are not met. Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 applies only to exemption from Central sales tax for specified inter-State sales and does not govern refund of State tax already levied and collected, so it affords no relief. A discrimination challenge also fails because dealers who collected tax and those who did not form separate classes with a rational basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 27-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, as it stood before amendment, entitled a dealer to refund of State tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade without satisfying the conditions in section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act; (ii) Whether section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 applied to grant the claimed relief; (iii) Whether denial of refund to dealers who had not collected tax earlier was discriminatory.

Issue (i): Whether rule 27-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, as it stood before amendment, entitled a dealer to refund of State tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade without satisfying the conditions in section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The refund scheme under section 6 of the State Act and section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act required, as a condition precedent, that the declared goods must have suffered local tax and must thereafter have been sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, with tax also paid under the Central Act. The earlier form of rule 27-A could not enlarge the statutory entitlement or override the mandatory requirements imposed by the two enactments. The subsequent amendment to the rule was only to bring it into conformity with the statute.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to refund merely on the basis of the unamended rule 27-A.

Issue (ii): Whether section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 applied to grant the claimed relief.

Analysis: Section 10 dealt with exemption from liability to pay Central sales tax in respect of specified inter-State sales during a specified period where no tax had been collected under the principal Act. It did not concern reimbursement of tax levied and collected under the State Act, and therefore had no application to claims for refund of State tax under section 6 of the State Act.

Conclusion: Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 did not the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether denial of refund to dealers who had not collected tax earlier was discriminatory.

Analysis: Dealers who had collected tax under both enactments and those who had not collected tax formed separate classes. The refund or exemption scheme was confined to those satisfying the statutory conditions, and the classification had a rational basis linked to the object of the provisions.

Conclusion: The challenge based on discrimination failed.

Final Conclusion: The claimed refund was unavailable because the statutory conditions for reimbursement were not met, the amendment relied on did not govern the case in the manner asserted, and the constitutional challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule cannot confer refund contrary to the mandatory conditions for reimbursement prescribed by the parent statutes, and statutory relief for inter-State sales of declared goods arises only when the conditions imposed by both the State levy and the Central levy are satisfied.

---