Retrospective tax reduction overrides a general non-refund clause, requiring refund of excess sales tax collected.

A retrospective sales tax notification reducing the applicable rate to 0.5% prevailed over the general residuary non-refund clause in the parent notification, so excess tax collected at 1% had to be refunded. The court treated the retrospective amendment as a special later provision extending the reduced rate to the covered bullion purchases and held that the earlier non-refund wording could not defeat that specific benefit. It also held that the dispute was not about rate determination under section 59A(d), because the taxable rate was already admitted and the real controversy concerned refundability of excess collection. The bank was directed to repay the excess amount with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute was one to be resolved under section 59A(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excess sales tax collected at 1% in view of the retrospective amendment reducing the rate to 0.5% and the residuary non-refund clause in the parent notification.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute was one to be resolved under section 59A(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The rate of tax applicable to the transaction stood admitted at 0.5%, and the controversy was not about determination of the rate of tax. The controversy instead concerned the consequence of a retrospective notification and the refundability of excess tax already collected. On that basis, the provision invoked by the single judge did not govern the dispute.

Conclusion: Section 59A(d) was not applicable to the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excess sales tax collected at 1% in view of the retrospective amendment reducing the rate to 0.5% and the residuary non-refund clause in the parent notification.

Analysis: The retrospective notification amended the relevant entry in Schedule IV and expressly stated that it was deemed to have come into force from 1 April 1999. Its explanatory note showed that the purpose was to extend the reduced rate of 0.5% to registered dealers purchasing bullion within the State. The general residuary clause in the parent notification could not override this special later provision. The earlier decisions relied upon by the Revenue concerned notifications that specifically contained a non-refund clause, which was absent here. The bank had received the excess amount before the assessment year closed and could have claimed adjustment or refund in the statutory return process. The failure to do so could not defeat the appellant's substantive benefit under the retrospective reduction.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to refund of the excess tax collected, and the bank was directed to repay it with interest.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective reduction in tax rate prevailed over the general non-refund clause, and the excess collection was ordered to be restored to the appellant through the bank.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective exemption or rate-reduction notification that specifically enlarges the benefit to the assessee prevails over a general residuary non-refund clause, and excess tax collected contrary to the revised liability must be refunded where the statutory refund mechanism can still be invoked.

---