Refund entitlement for export-oriented units upheld on substantial compliance, and revision held proper against refund rejection.

A refund rejection under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held challengeable by revision where the assessment had already noted entitlement to refund and the later communication merely refused payment; appeal or rectification was not the proper route. On refund entitlement under Section 4-E, the court treated the term "unit" as covering the petitioner's registered export-oriented branches, held that tax paid on qualifying purchases satisfied the substantive condition, and accepted substantial compliance with Rule 23(2C) and Form A-5. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore unsustainable, and entitlement to refund was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision petition challenging the rejection of refund was maintainable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to refund under Section 4-E for tax paid by its 100% export oriented units.

Issue (i): whether the revision petition challenging the rejection of refund was maintainable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The original assessment order had already recorded entitlement to refund and stated that the refund would be made separately. The subsequent grievance arose only when the refund was not granted and the claim was rejected by a later communication. In that setting, the rejection order was treated as a non-appealable order, and the revision under Section 33 was held to be the proper course. The contrary view that the matter was one of appeal or rectification under Section 55 was held to be untenable.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to refund under Section 4-E for tax paid by its 100% export oriented units.

Analysis: Section 4-E uses the expression "unit" and not "dealer", and the registration records showed the two export oriented units as branches or divisions of the petitioner. The refund claim was confined to the tax paid on cotton purchases for those units, and the fact that tax was paid on purchase at the applicable stage, rather than to the sellers, did not defeat the claim. Read with Rule 23(2C) and Form A-5, the requirements were treated as capable of substantial compliance because the essence of the provision was satisfied by tax being paid on the relevant purchases by the eligible units. The refund condition was therefore fulfilled.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim could not be sustained, and the petitioner's entitlement to refund of the tax paid by the eligible export oriented units stood established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for refund by an eligible export oriented unit are satisfied, procedural requirements attached to the claim may be met by substantial compliance, and a dealer may seek the refund in respect of its registered units when those units are not separate legal entities.

---