Reimbursement under sales tax law extends to the inter-State seller, without requiring that seller to have paid the original State tax.

Section 29-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was construed as granting reimbursement to the person making the inter-State sale where declared goods had borne tax under the State Act, Central sales tax had been paid on the inter-State sale, and the claim was filed within time. The court read the amended language as not requiring the claimant to be the same person who originally paid the State tax, noting that the earlier ordinance wording had been replaced to omit that limitation. Because the provision was retrospective, it applied to the assessment year in question, and the assessee was entitled to reimbursement.

---

---

Issues: Whether reimbursement under section 29-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was admissible to the person making the inter-State sale even though the tax on the purchases had been paid by registered dealers.

Analysis: Section 29-B applies where tax has been levied under the U.P. Act on declared goods, the goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, tax has been paid under the Central Sales Tax Act on such inter-State sale, and the application is made within the prescribed time. The language of the amended provision confers reimbursement on the person making the inter-State sale, and it does not require that the same person must also have been the one who originally paid the State tax. The earlier ordinance had used different wording, but that formulation was replaced by the Act, showing that the legislature intentionally omitted the requirement that refund be limited to the person by whom the tax was paid. The provision was also made retrospective, so it governed the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to reimbursement under section 29-B, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language of a reimbursement provision clearly grants the benefit to the person making the inter-State sale, the benefit cannot be restricted by reading in a further condition that the claimant must also be the person who originally paid the tax.

---