Subordinate rules cannot override the parent statute; excess-tax refund claim failed amid pending revisional proceedings.

Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 could not operate as an independent mandate overriding Section 20 of the parent Act. Procedural rules in subordinate legislation must yield where they conflict with the statute, so the excess-tax refund mechanism could not displace pending revisional proceedings already initiated under Section 20. Objections to jurisdiction and merits were to be raised before the revisional authority, which was to decide them in accordance with law and proceed expeditiously. The writ relief seeking compulsory refund was therefore refused, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, could be treated as an independent provision overriding Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, so as to compel refund of excess tax notwithstanding pending revisional proceedings.

Analysis: The rule requiring refund of excess tax was urged to be mandatory and independent of the statutory revisional framework. The Court held that procedural provisions in subordinate legislation must yield to the governing statute. Where the statute and the Rules are inconsistent, the statutory provision prevails. Since revisional proceedings under Section 20 had already been initiated, objections to jurisdiction or merits could be raised before the revisional authority, which was expected to consider them in accordance with law and to complete the proceedings expeditiously.

Conclusion: Rule 35 could not override Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner was not entitled to the requested writ relief, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate rules cannot prevail over the parent statute, and any conflict between the two must be resolved in favour of the statutory provision.

---