Refund of excess sales tax turns on proof that the tax burden was actually borne and not passed on.

Refund of excess sales tax was available only to the claimant that actually bore the tax burden, and the statute placed the burden of proving that incidence on the applicant. An affidavit from the assessee's accounts manager stated that excess tax paid on purchase of HSD oil was not passed on to customers, and that evidence was neither rebutted by material nor rejected on a proper basis. As there was also no indication that the assessing authority examined the account books before refusing the claim, the record supported the finding that the tax incidence was suffered by the assessee. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and the evidentiary burden under section 23-B was discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of excess tax under section 23-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on proving that the incidence of tax had been borne by it and had not been passed on to customers.

Analysis: Refund under section 23-B could be claimed only by the person who had actually suffered the tax burden, and the statute expressly placed the burden of proving such incidence on the claimant. The assessee produced an affidavit of its Manager (Accounts) stating that the excess tax paid on purchase of HSD oil was not passed on. That affidavit was neither rebutted by any material nor disbelieved on any proper basis. There was also nothing to show that the assessing authority examined the account books before rejecting the claim. On the facts, the finding that the incidence of tax had been suffered by the assessee was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and the assessee had discharged the burden required under section 23-B.

---