Double taxation on unfructified sales barred; relief allowed where the same goods were taxed again on later sale.

Tax collected on an intended sale that later did not fructify could not be retained again when the same goods were subsequently sold and taxed at the single point applicable to that turnover. The High Court applied the principle against double taxation on the same goods and accepted that relief could not be denied merely because the claim was raised after delay, where the substance of the turnover showed tax had already been collected on a non-fructified transaction and then again on the later sale. The assessee was therefore entitled to deduction and corresponding relief for the disputed turnover.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to relief in respect of turnover arising from unfructified sales, on the footing that the same goods had suffered tax twice and the claim was not defeated by limitation.

Analysis: The returned goods related to an intended sale that did not fructify, yet the tax had been collected on the intended turnover. The Court held that where the same goods were subsequently sold and were exigible only at a single point, the Revenue could not retain tax on the same goods twice. Following the earlier decision on unfructified sales, the claim could not be rejected merely on the ground of delay when the substance of the turnover showed that tax had been collected on a non-fructified transaction and again on the later sale.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the deduction and corresponding relief in respect of the disputed turnover, and the Revenue's revision failed.

---