Refund rights for excess tax survive where no procedure is prescribed; absence of machinery does not create forfeiture in favour of the State.

Section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treated excess tax wrongly realised by a dealer as held in trust for the purchaser and required refund to that person in the prescribed manner. Where no refund procedure had been framed for the relevant period, the absence of machinery could not defeat substantive refund rights or create a forfeiture in favour of the State. A dealer who produced particulars showing repayment to purchasers was entitled to have those repayments verified, and only any unverified amount could be adjusted. The State could not treat the excess as permanently vested in it merely because the prescribed refund mechanism was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a prescribed procedure under section 29-A(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the dealer could not itself refund the excess amount realised as tax to the purchasers and was therefore disentitled to protection against withdrawal of the refund adjustment voucher; and whether the excess amount stood forfeited to the State.

Analysis: Section 29-A required a dealer who had wrongly realised tax to deposit the amount, treated the excess over the tax due as held in trust for the person from whom it was realised, and contemplated refund to that person in the prescribed manner. The Court noted that no refund procedure had been framed for the relevant period, and that the assessee had produced particulars showing repayment to the purchasers from whom the excess was collected. The absence of a procedural prescription could not be used to defeat substantive refund rights or to create a forfeiture in favour of the State. Since the Act contained no forfeiture clause, the amount could not be treated as vesting permanently in the State merely because the prescribed machinery was unavailable. The authority was required to verify the repayments and adjust only any amount not satisfactorily established as refunded.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to relief, and the respondents could not withdraw the refund adjustment voucher merely because the refund procedure had not yet been prescribed. The authority was directed to verify the repayments and make only such adjustments as were necessary for any unverified amount.

---