Unfructified sale, not sale return, governed the rejected goods transaction and the refund claim was not time-barred.

Goods manufactured and supplied under supply orders for future, unascertained goods were treated as an unfructified sale rather than a sale return. Because the goods were rejected for non-conformity with specifications and the bills remained unpaid, there was no appropriation by the purchaser as contemplated by Explanation 3(a) to Section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On that basis, Section 13(5) did not apply to bar the refund claim, and the claim was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transaction was a sale return or an unfructified sale, and whether the claim for refund was barred by limitation under the sales tax provision.

Analysis: The supply orders required manufacture and supply of goods not then in existence, so the goods were future and unascertained in nature. Under Explanation 3(a) to Section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, where goods are not in existence, the sale is concluded only on appropriation by the purchaser. The goods were rejected for non-conformity with specifications and the bills were returned unpaid; there was no appropriation by the purchaser. The distinction between a consensual return of goods and a unilateral rejection of goods shows that the transaction was not a sale return. As the turnover represented unfructified sales, Section 13(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 had no application.

Conclusion: The transaction was an unfructified sale and not a sale return, and the claim was not time-barred under Section 13(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

---