Refund claims under sales tax law must be routed through the proper officer, and limitation runs from communication of the forfeiture order.

A refund claim under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was construed as requiring initial filing through the Sales Tax Officer, who would forward it to the Commissioner for inquiry and decision, because the Act and prescribed form had to be harmonised to make the refund remedy workable. The limitation period for the refund application was held to run from communication or knowledge of the forfeiture order, not merely from the date of the order itself, where a literal reading would make the remedy ineffective. On that construction, the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reject the application on merits and should have forwarded it in the prescribed manner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for refund under section 38(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 had to be made to the authority that had passed the forfeiture order, or through the Sales Tax Officer in whose jurisdiction the dealer was registered; (ii) whether the one-year limitation for filing the refund application ran from the date of the forfeiture order or from the date of its communication or knowledge; (iii) whether the Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the refund application instead of forwarding it to the proper authority.

Issue (i): Whether an application for refund under section 38(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 had to be made to the authority that had passed the forfeiture order, or through the Sales Tax Officer in whose jurisdiction the dealer was registered.

Analysis: Section 38(6) required the claim to be made in prescribed form to the Commissioner within one year from the date of forfeiture, while Form 35-B under Rule 52-C was addressed to the Sales Tax Officer. The provisions were therefore not fully aligned. The Court applied a construction that would make the statute effective and workable, holding that the legislative intent was that the application should first be moved to the Sales Tax Officer, who would forward it to the Commissioner with remarks and documents. The Commissioner would then decide the claim after inquiry.

Conclusion: The proper course was not to approach the authority that passed the forfeiture order; the application was required to be routed through the Sales Tax Officer. The finding was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the one-year limitation for filing the refund application ran from the date of the forfeiture order or from the date of its communication or knowledge.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that where a statute confers a remedy, words referring to the date of an order should, in case of ambiguity, be construed to mean the date when the order is communicated or otherwise comes to the knowledge of the affected person. Relying on settled authority on limitation and communication of orders, the Court held that a literal construction would make the remedy impractical and nugatory.

Conclusion: The limitation period commenced from the date of communication or knowledge of the forfeiture order, not merely from the date the order was passed. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the refund application instead of forwarding it to the proper authority.

Analysis: Once the refund scheme was construed as requiring initial presentation to the Sales Tax Officer, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reject the claim on merits. The application ought to have been sent to the Sales Tax Officer for onward transmission to the Commissioner for inquiry and decision. A lack of jurisdiction to decide the claim also meant that rejection by that officer was improper.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application; it ought to have been forwarded in the manner contemplated by the Act and Rules. The finding was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The refund mechanism under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was construed in a practical and harmonious manner so that claims could be processed through the Sales Tax Officer and the period of limitation would run only from communication or knowledge of the forfeiture order. The references were answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax-refund provision and its prescribed form appear inconsistent, they must be harmonised to give the remedy practical effect, and limitation for challenging or claiming relief from an order begins when the affected person has communication or knowledge of that order.

---