Tax refund confined to dealer, while export exemption depends on a direct link between purchase and export transaction.

Section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act confined refund of excess tax to the dealer, so a non-dealer purchaser could not claim refund merely because tax had been collected on the tea purchase and remitted to the State. The taxing provision was treated as clear and incapable of extension by implication or equitable considerations. On Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, exemption depended on an inextricable link between the local purchase and the export transaction, supported by prior agreement or order. The factual finding that exports were made pursuant to foreign buyers' contracts was left undisturbed, and the exemption was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, not being the dealer, was entitled to refund of tax collected from it on purchase of tea under Section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the claim to exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was established on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant, not being the dealer, was entitled to refund of tax collected from it on purchase of tea under Section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 44 permits refund only where the assessing authority finds that the dealer has paid tax in excess of what is due from him, and the refund is to be made to the dealer. The appellant had collected tax from the seller at the point of purchase, but the tax was remitted by the dealer to the Government. The statutory language was held to be clear and unambiguous, and in a taxing statute nothing can be added by implication. The fact that the State should not retain excess tax did not enlarge the class of persons entitled to claim refund under the provision.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund under Section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim to exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was established on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Exemption under Section 5(3) requires that the last sale or purchase preceding export must be for the purpose of complying with an agreement or order in relation to such export, so that there is an inextricable link between the local sale or purchase and the export. The absence of an agreement on record made the factual foundation of the claim uncertain, but the assessing authority had found from the export documents that the exports were pursuant to prior contracts or orders of foreign buyers and had allowed exemption in full. That factual finding was not reopened in appeal.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was not interfered with, and the factual finding allowing exemption was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the statutory refund claim was confined to the dealer under Section 44, and no basis was made out to grant refund to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute clearly confines refund to the dealer, courts cannot extend the remedy by equitable considerations or general notions against unjust retention of tax; exemption under the export provision further depends on proof of an inextricable link between the local purchase and the export transaction.

---