Statutory Provisions Trump Rules in Refund Process; Petitioner Advised to Address Objections Before Revisional Authority.

The Court held that statutory provisions prevail over Rules in the refund procedure, advising the petitioner to address objections before the revisional authority. The Court dismissed the writ petition, urging expedited proceedings by the revisional authority and denying leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the matter's lack of significant importance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of excess tax and surcharge as per Rule 35 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.
2. Conflict between statutory provisions and Rules regarding refund procedure.
3. Jurisdiction of revisional authority under section 20 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
4. Dismissal of writ petition and request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to implement the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for refunding excess tax and surcharge as per Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The counsel argued that the assessing authority must refund the excess tax within two months of the appellate order, regardless of any departmental appeal. However, the Government Pleader contended that procedural provisions must align with the governing statutory provisions, and the statutory provisions shall prevail over the Rules.

2. The Court held that if there is any conflict between the statute and the Rules, the provisions of the governing statute shall prevail over the Rules. The Court emphasized that the rule should be subordinate to the governing statutory provision. The Government Pleader informed the Court that proceedings for revising the appellate order under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act had been initiated. The Court advised the petitioner to raise objections before the revisional authority, ensuring that objections to jurisdiction or merits are duly considered in accordance with the law.

3. The Court dismissed the writ petition with observations that the revisional authority should expedite the proceedings and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner's counsel. The Court refused the oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, deeming the matter's significance insufficient for Supreme Court intervention. The Court maintained that the rule is subordinate to the governing statutory provision, and no question of general importance necessitated Supreme Court intervention in this case.

4. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the subordination of the rule to the governing statute and rejecting the request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court due to the matter's lack of significant importance warranting Supreme Court consideration.

---