Form C filing deadline is directory; purchasing dealer may claim direct refund of excess Central Sales Tax.

A purchasing dealer who bore the burden of excess Central Sales Tax could directly seek refund from the State and challenge rejection of Form C declarations, because the dealer was a person aggrieved once the declarations were accepted for verification. The time for filing Form C under Section 8 of the CST Act and Rule 12(7) was directory, so belated filing could be allowed on sufficient cause; absence of a revised return or amended invoice did not justify rejection. Once Form C was accepted, the dealer was entitled to concessional tax and refund, and the State could not retain tax collected without authority of law or defeat the claim through unjust enrichment or adjustment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchasing dealer had locus standi to seek refund of excess Central Sales Tax directly from the State and maintain a challenge to the assessment order rejecting the Form "C" declarations. (ii) Whether filing of Form "C" within the prescribed time was mandatory in a strict sense, and whether the absence of a revised return or amended invoice could justify rejection of the declarations. (iii) Whether the purchasing dealer was entitled to concessional rate of tax and consequential refund, and whether the State could deny refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment, adjustment, or absence of direct statutory entitlement.

Issue (i): Whether the purchasing dealer had locus standi to seek refund of excess Central Sales Tax directly from the State and maintain a challenge to the assessment order rejecting the Form "C" declarations.

Analysis: The scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act showed that the burden of tax was borne by the purchasing dealer in the present factual setting, the Form "C" declarations were issued by the purchasing State, were submitted through the selling dealer, and were not found defective by the assessing authority. The refusal to grant the concession rested on the absence of revised returns, amended invoices, and credit notes, not on any defect in the declarations themselves. Once the purchaser had borne the burden and the statutory declarations had been accepted for verification, the purchaser was a person aggrieved and could maintain the claim for refund.

Conclusion: The purchasing dealer had locus standi and the refund claim directly against the State was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether filing of Form "C" within the prescribed time was mandatory in a strict sense, and whether the absence of a revised return or amended invoice could justify rejection of the declarations.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 permit Form "C" declarations to be accepted beyond the original period on sufficient cause being shown. The time requirement is directory, not mandatory, and the assessing authority may allow belated filing. Requiring a revised return after the statutory period had expired would compel performance of an impossible act and would elevate a machinery provision over the substantive entitlement to concessional tax. The assessment authority had already accepted and scrutinised the declarations, which showed that the forms themselves were not in issue.

Conclusion: Form "C" filing is mandatory as to compliance, but the time limit is directory, and the absence of revised return or amended invoice did not justify rejection of the declarations.

Issue (iii): Whether the purchasing dealer was entitled to concessional rate of tax and consequential refund, and whether the State could deny refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment, adjustment, or absence of direct statutory entitlement.

Analysis: Once the Form "C" declarations were accepted, the purchasing dealer satisfied the conditions for concessional rate of tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the refusal to accord that benefit was arbitrary and unsustainable. The excess tax had been collected and deposited with the State without authority of law, attracting Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Section 37(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 recognizes the buyer's right to seek refund of tax or excess tax collected from the buyer and deposited by the dealer. The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not defeat the claim because the purchaser had borne the burden and the State had no legal basis to retain the excess amount. Adjustment against the selling dealer's dues was also not warranted in these facts, as the direct refund had to follow the purchaser's entitlement.

Conclusion: The purchasing dealer was entitled to concessional tax and direct refund from the State, and the pleas of unjust enrichment and adjustment were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the refusal to accept the Form "C" declarations was set aside, and the refund of excess tax with statutory interest was directed in favour of the purchasing dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a purchasing dealer has borne the burden of excess Central Sales Tax, the Form "C" declarations are accepted on verification, and the statutory conditions for concessional rate are otherwise satisfied, the dealer may directly maintain a refund claim against the collecting State, since the prescribed time for filing the declarations is directory and the State cannot retain tax collected without authority of law.

---