Statutory sales tax liability stayed with the dealer, and reimbursement could not extend beyond the letter's limited period.

Statutory sales tax liability on the sale of vegetable ghee remained on the registered dealer, and a supplier's assurance to bear the tax could not displace that primary obligation. Section 26 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was treated as a recovery mechanism only, not a transfer of liability to a third party or the Government, so the assessed demand remained payable. A reimbursement claim based on the letter to Statfed also failed for the period beyond its stated validity, because the assurance operated only up to 30 September 1993 or until Government decision, whichever was earlier. Relief, if any, was left to be pursued only for the covered period before the competent forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the registered dealer remained liable to pay sales tax assessed on the sale of vegetable ghee notwithstanding the supplier's assurance to bear the liability; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring reimbursement from Statfed on the basis of the letter relied upon and promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): whether the registered dealer remained liable to pay sales tax assessed on the sale of vegetable ghee notwithstanding the supplier's assurance to bear the liability.

Analysis: The liability to pay sales tax under the Act rested on the registered dealer, and the supplier had no statutory responsibility to discharge that liability. Section 26 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 provided only a special mode of recovery for arrears and did not shift the primary liability from the dealer to a third party or the Government. Since the assessment was not challenged on merits and the tax was admittedly payable on the sale of vegetable ghee, the assessed demand was payable by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable to pay the tax assessed and demanded.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring reimbursement from Statfed on the basis of the letter relied upon and promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The reimbursement letter relied upon was expressed to operate only up to 30 September 1993 or until the Government's decision, whichever was earlier. The petitioner's tax liability extended beyond that period, up to 31 March 1994. In these circumstances, the assurance could not be enforced for the extended period, and no mandamus for reimbursement beyond the stated validity of the letter could be issued.

Conclusion: No direction for reimbursement was granted beyond the period covered by the letter, though the petitioner was left free to seek relief for the covered period before the competent forum.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in substance because the statutory tax liability remained on the dealer and the reimbursement assurance did not cover the entire assessment period.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer's statutory liability to pay sales tax cannot be displaced by a third party's assurance, and a limited reimbursement promise cannot be enforced beyond its expressed temporal scope.

---